Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by hanamaki (909) on 2004.02.15 10:21 (#28476)
    Okay, while I am quite interested in national and international politics, I am not so familiar with US politics and foreign ethical values.
    Currently I am very puzzled.
    Former President Clinton lied to the unimportant public and important judical system, about a sex afair. Definitely a bad thing, but he lied about some personal stuff which was not conected to his job. (Anyway a very common lie, a high percentage of the world citiziens have probably done before).
    If President Bush had lied to the unimportant public, probably unimportant international community and the important Senate about the situation in Iraque, it will be a lie on the job.
    So imagine, both have lied in front of one constitutional power (Senat or Court), but one about his private life, the other about his job, which lie is more serios when judging wether one is really able to do his job?
    Okay, for me the answer is clear, but this is not the question I want to ask. What really puzzles me is, that there are no talks about "impeachment", no really public/media outcry like during the Clinton afair. Is this the way, a modern society like america works? E.g. sex and crime is interesting, we wont care about the rest? ... I am really puzzled.

    I am not saying it is proofed that Bush is guilty in this case. But still during such investigations I naivly expected more statements about the seriousness of the crime if he will be guilty.
    • Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. This is perjury. While Bush may have lied, it certainly wasn't under oath (though I grant that the sweep of his lie is much larger). As a result, his lies about the war don't immediately appear to be a crime, though it might be a violation of his oath of office.

      As for why there are no talks of impeachment, I would suggest that the Democratic party saw the Republican impeachment effort on Clinton backfire (though not that much, obviously), so they don't want t

      • An impeachment, yes, would kill the Democrats. But also, let's be honest here: we do not know that Bush lied. OK, we can point out little things that may have implied things that weren't true, etc. But when Bush said that Iraq has WMD, we do not know what he knew. The question "what did he know, and when did he know it?" has not been answered.

        Unfortunately, it looks like it won't be answered for some time.