Consider this

[learnedax]

Clinton lied about the details of his personal life, and got impeached.
Bush lied about the necessity of going to war, and...?

Comments

[oakleaf-mirror.livejournal.com]

While I agree that the later is far more serious than the former, the legal distinction is that Clinton was under oath in a court deposition, at the time. Bush was merely addressing the world in an official capacity. Sad that that isn't held to the same standard.

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

That is an important distinction, and although I think there were some extenuating circumstances I agree that Clinton should not have committed perjury.

Nevertheless, fast-talking congress with doctored evidence to spend billions and risk soldiers' lives on an unjustified invasion does represent a distinct crime - fraud, on a grand scale. Given the situations, I'd say it's a far worse crime than perjury, and certainly as damning of the administration's honesty.

[oakleaf-mirror.livejournal.com]

I'm not a lawyer, but I seem to recall from the few law classes I did have in university that fraud had a very specific legal definition. It has six elements, and all six must be established for fraud to exist. Specifically, I recall it as "Misrepresentation of a material fact with knowledge of it's falsity and intent to deceive which brings about a reasonable reliance and damages."

While I think some of those are more clear than others, I'd be surprised if one could prove that he had knowledge of the falsity of his assertions given the paper trail of 'flawed' intelligence reports. Without that, it isn't fraud. I'm not saying what he did wasn't wrong. I'm just not convinced he violated any laws in doing it.

[tpau]

this is a can. it is full of worms. why you opening?

[oakenguy.livejournal.com]

Careful--questions like this can make people accuse you of Not Supporting the Troops!

[doozer4200.livejournal.com]

Because Americans (and their "leaders" in the congress) are 1) Puritans, 2) Stupid, 3) Jingoistic, and 4) Violent.

I'm done now. Time to move to Canada.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Oakleaf Mirror has a point. Clinton lied under oath - a time when he promised, on penalty of law, to tell the truth. The lie was in answer to a question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place, but it was, technically, a violation of the law.

Bush seems to have lied about far more important things. But he didn't break the law in doing so. And presidential impeachment is about dealing with violations of the law.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

On top of this, they're doing their best to get the laws changed, so they won't be in violation of them.

Now, Ashcroft REFUSING TO ANSWER a Congressional hearing, that I don't understand. He should be held in contempt of Congress, either fined the $100 or held for a month in jail (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/192.html).

Perhaps we should instead ask...

[elusiveat.livejournal.com]

Why would Bush and Cheney only answer questions for the "9-11 Commission" (why am I incapable of spelling today?) behind closed doors, and only together? And, um, wasn't there something about not even going under oath behind closed doors? Pretty hard to lie under oath if you never take an oath...

[rickthefightguy.livejournal.com]

As much as I hate to say it, Bush made a good point in a speech yesterday. The UN Security Council looked at the same intel, and they thought that invasion was justified. The Clinton administration looked at earlier intel and determined that regime change in Iraq was to become policy.

Of course then he went on to harp on his usual 'Kerry Changes his mind sometimes based on changing information, so that is somehow a bad thing!'....

[mr-teem.livejournal.com]

It all depends on what the definition of "the intelligence" is...

The Clinton administration had access to raw, equivocal data, most of which from when inspectors were actually on the ground and set regime change and containment (not preemptive deterrence) as its policy.

The Bush administration settled on regime change via preemptive deterrence as its policy and also happened to have access to raw, equivocal data from when inspectors were not actually on the ground.

Congress was shown distilled (declassified) unequivocal data that justified the need for preemptive deterrrence and supported the administration's policy.

The UN Security Council was shown the same data and demanded (and received) new inspectors on the ground but did not support preemptive deterrence. [If you're referring to this speech, he is not asserting that the UN voted for invasion based on pre-invasion data.]

The Bush administration didn't like the lack of evidence the inspectors were discovering that disputed their distilled (declassified) unequivocal data, told the new inspectors to get out and set about imposing regime change via preemptive deterrence.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Bush is the master of the not-technically-a-lie kind of lie. He counts on the fact that judge-types know that correlation is not causation, but that the general voting public doesn't. He's always putting technically true facts next to each other in ways that are designed to imply their connectedness, and certain deeper meanings, without actually *claiming* those things in a strict sense. And he also is great at statements that are non-falsifiable, e.g. "Just because we haven't found WMD's *yet* doesn't mean they're not there!" But he almost never flat-out lies. Unfortunately, "chronically abusive misleader" is hard to prosecute, either in the courts or the press.

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

It's true, he (or the minds behind him) are much more politically apt in some ways than their opponents believe. However, on a number of separate occasions strong evidence has surfaced indicating significant suppression and manipulation of the evidence gathered on Iraq. That we are seeing any of that without a driving media frenzy over it makes me wonder how much more we would see with a zealot like Kenneth Starr going after them.

Isn't our media infamous for wanting to topple public figures? Can we get some of that about now?

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

... he will not be re-elected. Now it turns out that I don't think much of his opponent either, but perhaps getting this clown out of office will give clowns in the immediate future pause.

[elusiveat.livejournal.com]

How certain are you that not re-electing him will get him out of office? I don't know about you, but a sentence that combines the words "delay", "election", and "terrorism" sends shivers down my back.

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

Fairly. I suspect that if they try delaying the election, someone will decide to shoot him.

[elusiveat.livejournal.com]

What would shooting him accomplish?

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

Ah, I wasn't being clear. I don't think it would accomplish anything good - I just think that is what would happen in the situation. In fact, it is easy to see how it could cause harm - murdering Julius Caesar didn't lead to the continued existence of the Republic, after all.

[elusiveat.livejournal.com]

Next question is whether he is at all likely to be personally involved in the decision as to whether to delay the election, since he is the only one in the administration who would be likely to lose much by him being shot...

Just seems like there are two or three incidents a week these days that contribute to my feeling Really Nervous. I've railed against the US government in the past, but really, it's a pretty decent system. I don't want it to go away. :\

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Because Clinton was a Democrat in a Republican controlled Senate, and Bush is a Republican under similar circumstances.

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

...was cagey enough to hedge and parse and, above all, never go under oath.