Re: Excellent News - Bush Approval Drops

In article
<gmgraves-B7EE02.14000921092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <clund-76BC3E.08534421092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> C Lund <clund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > In article <UuudnW1Yius06K3eRVn-uQ@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Buzz <buzz@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Shame on the repugnicans who supported that disgrace.
> > > Does the legal system in your country have the concept of perjury?
> > Yes. Does your legal system have the concept of context? Apparently
> > not, since it's willing to let itself be used to question people about
> > blowjobs in an investigation about economic shenanigans (Whitewater).
> No. My country does not have the concept of "contextural lying" and
> neither does yours.

No, but my country has the notion of what is an appropriate /
contextual line of questioning. And asking about blowjobs from an
intern in an investigation about economic wrongdoings is completely
out of order. Unless Starr was trying to prove that those blowjobs
were paid for with public funds, that is. IIRC, that was not the case.

Starr should not have been allowed to ask those questions. The entire
witchhunt he and his backers were running against the Clintons became
a national disgrace the second they veered off Whitewater and into
Clinton's shorts.

> The whole idea of Perjury laws is to get the facts.

But what was the point of getting those facts? Making Clinton look
like a fool? Ruining his marriage in public? "Getting" Clinton?

> That's why its unlawful to not answer questions (unless they are
> self-incriminating) and to lie while on the witness stand. If you
> stopped to think about it before you posted, you would have realized
> that the concept of "contextural lying" is counter to the entire witness
> examination facet of jurisprudence. And on top of that, who makes the
> decision that lying is permissible in any given context? The Judge? If
> the judge cab give approval for lying, in answer to a question, then he
> might as well disallow the question (which he does have the power to
> do). The whole concept makes no sense.

Those are all valid points, certainly. But when a court allows itself
to be used for a witch-hunt, it loses all credibility. The whole
process becomes a joke.

And you can't escape this fact: Clinton lied about a blowjob; one
family hurt. bush lied about a war; two countries bogged down in a
pointless war.

Yet somehow Clinton's lie was worse.

I agree Clinton should get a slap over the wrist for lying under oath
- even though the only people he perjured himself to were a bunch of
dirty old men. But please compare the consequences of those two lies.

> > No, not at all. But the intention of the Starr process was to "get"
> > Clinton. They managed to manoeuver him into lying about a blowjob. If
> > Starr (or some other political hitman) was given the same backing and
> > resources he had when going after Clinton to go after *you*, chances
> > are he'd "get" you as well, for perjury or something else. And that
> > goes for anybody else here as well. The Starr process was a witchhunt,
> > plain and simple, and it worked.
> Actually, he wouldn't have "gotten" me, because unlike Clinton, I've got
> sense enough not to lie in court on a witness stand.

You can't know that. If Starr and his backers really wanted to "get"
you, chances are they would somehow manage to twist and distort things
so much you'd end up perjuring yourself. Or maybe he would be able to
dig up something so painful and embarrassing you'd rather take a
chance and lie than tell the truth or for that matter give him the
finger.

> > Of course, Clinton might have been better advised to say "none of your
> > damn business", but we all make mistakes.
> That's called "taking the fifth" in this country, and it refers to using
> the fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution
> (self-incrimination) as legal grounds for not answering the question.
> And I believe that Clinton would have been within his rights to have
> taken the fifth on the subject of the Lewinsky cow. Instead, he decided
> to lie.

The problem is that if he had taken the fifth, his wife would want to
know why he hadn't just said no. Clinton was caught between Starr and
his wife.

> > But I still can't see how
> > lying under oath about a blowjob is somehow worse than telling a pack
> > of lies that bog bog two nations down in a completely unnecessary and
> > unjustified war.
> No, you wouldn't, would you. Have you ever lied to your wife? Even a
> teensy little "white lie" like telling her that she looks great when you
> actually think she looks wan and tired? Is that against the law in your
> country? No? Lying is only illegal when a court of law is trying to get
> at the truth in order to see that justice is done. What the lie is
> about, in Clinton's case (Bush's too) is not relevant. Clinton could
> have lied about what he had for breakfast that morning (how's that for
> innocuous?) and still be libel for a perjury charge. Bush, OTOH, wasn't
> under any oath to tell the truth - that's not part of his oath of
> office.

But didn't the oath bush *did* make have something to do about
upholding the best interests of the US?

> He can lie about anything he deems necessary (and believe me,
> even your precious Democrat presidents

Oi! IMHO, the Democrats are only marginally better than the
Republicans. The Democrats aren't my precious anything.

> have lied to the American people
> and the world - lots of times). Our only recourse would be to not
> re-elect him, a recourse, which, the people of the United States decided
> not to use. Of course, It's possible that he didn't lie, but was
> misinformed, I don't know. I know that you Bush haters won't allow for
> that possibility, but it IS one nonetheless.

No, I find it quite likely that bush is an ignorant puppet who just
does what his handlers tell him to do.

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
.

Loading