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.
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.
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...
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!'....
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.
... 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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
(no subject)
Perhaps we should instead ask...
no subject
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!'....
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject