Quote:
Originally Posted by quicksteal
All right, I'm about tired of all this. Clinton lied in a grand jury hearing. That's perjury. He broke the law. Yes it was over a ridiculous subject, but he still broke the law.
To call Bush a liar about Iraq is ridiculous. He was given intelligence, and he had to interpret it. Although the Senate didn't have much time to look at that intelligence, they agreed with the president that Houssein had WMD. That was wrong. But he was wrong with Kerry, Edwards, and just about everyone else in Congress. ...
|
I'll concede that Clinton and Bush used similiar strategy in covering for their untruths. Clinton retreated to a distinction in his mind between oral sex and "sex." Bush has attempted to change the context and purpose of his prewar rhetoric through an ever-changing rational for invasion. But I'm sorry, Bush did cherrypick facts, distort evidence, exaggerate, and flat out lie to the American public. So you need to ask yourself which lie had more consequence. While it's true that Clinton's lie led to impeachment and, it could be argued, weakened our faith in our government, it was still a lie about his personal sex life, a blowjob. Bush's lies on the other had, which were systemic through his regime led to the deaths of over 1000 Americans, tens of thousands Iraqis, gave motivation to a new generation of terrorists, destabilized the middle east, and detrimentally weakened our standing in the world. I'll take a fib about a blowjob over that any day.