I went away for the weekend. We disagree on how bad Clinton’s lying was. I won’t say major, but can’t say minor either. Still the actual ‘harm” wasn’t that great and that is why I would give it a rest.

Lindsey graham?? (I didn’t research)

Dugger

scratch-Demorats culd -edit DEMOCRATS COULD.

He is RIGHTEOUSLY DEFIANT !

He doesn’t miss a beat. Just like the rhythm on a Roman slave ship, BOOM!
BOOM! BOOM! the relentless cadence rolls on : BATTLE SPEED !!!!
ATTACK SPEED!!!! RAMMING SPEED!!!!!!!

It’s a strategy as old as adolescence itself. My eldest son frequently mitigates his own major infractions by diverting the discussion to his brother’s past sins

Maybe if Bush was to get a BJ everyonce in a while we would have a better economy and do better at home - I mean maybe that has something to do with his jacked up decisions from the uptight right.

No, I’m not. You need to look that word up in the dictionary. “contradict” I mean. It means to make a statement which, if true, precludes the truth of another statment. The two statements I made are perfectly capable of being true simultaneously.

I was trying to draw a significant distinction between degrees of badness. Surely you must admit that is possible. Otherwise you would be constratined to say that a poor old lady stealing a can of cat food for lunch is as criminal as Jeffrey Dahmer. The bad thing Clinton did was bad. What Bush has done is a lot worse.

I am not arguing anything more than that we go by what s public record on Clinton, and that we should ignore suspicions, opposition research, wishful thinking, etc.

I’m addressing the assertion OW made and you rejected, namely:

the Clinton  scandals were no more than the RNC cranking out press releases

You rejected that, saying: no, no, Bubba really did do a bad thing.

Clinton’s bad act is by no means the sum total of the “Clinton scandals.” There were a whole long list that were thoroughly investigated and which came to nothing.

In my oblique aside, I only meant to suggest that the genuinely bad act was so minor that House Republicans felt compelled to improve on it with unrelated, unreported “evidence” about his–you guessed it–sex life.

Still no guesses which GOP leader was pimping the “evidence room”?

Dugger

but lets concede what was ultimately involved here was Paul Jones sexual harassment case (not the conscience easing bravo juniper- often alleged).

there’s a reason. I do that so you’ll know what part of your previous comment I’m referring to when I follow up.

I’m surprised you’re unaware of the “evidence room” certain GOP officials urged House members to visit during the impeachment trial. In that room, certain members of the House had collected materials about–no, not Paula Jones and her Republican-activist-supported-harassment-claim–about Bill Clinton’s sex life.

As the quote I posted demonstrates, someone was actively encouraging House members to review this material–unrelated to the charges brought by the Starr commission–before they decided whether to vote for impeachment.

Any guesses who it was?

 You might be right if I had said that it was OK for Clinton to have lied. I didn t. I said the exact opposite, as a matter of fact .

You said previously:

“Yes, Clinton lied under oath. Yes, that was bad. Yes, he deserved to be disbarred.

But Clinton lied to prevent not only personal embarrassment, but to prevent his government from being brought to a grinding halt by a bullshit investigation engineered by his well-funded political enemies.”

In the second paragraph you are contradicting the first paragraph. By modifying your statement in the second paragraph you are effectively excusing the WJC lie. I accept that there are not absolutes, especially when trying to govern. But what WJC and GWB do are exclusive of each other. What you call deceptions by the Bush administration I call shit thrown against the wall by an angry political minority to see what will stick. What Clinton did, while not earth shattering, was to break the law. His disbarment was just the political deal that he took to make everything else go away so he could get on with his life.

If you wish to believe there is more dirt on Clinton, fine w/me. I don’t know of it and that would be all I am willing to concede. I guess you’re point is that some Rs thought and said there was more. So what. Its not out there now and I’d have to see it to believe it. What Clinton did, was wrong, and it was a helluva lot more than lying about a bravo juniper. But it ended there as far as I know.

Dugger

Oliver’s statement is obviously hyperbolic, and pretty mild hyperbole in the context of modern political discourse. “Full of it?” no: the point he’s trying to make is that the reckless, vindictive, well funded right-wing campaign to destroy Clinton was not only out-of-proportion to any of his alleged offenses, but also resulted in zero convictions of Clinton for anything, including perjury. For anyone to claim that there was something to the Clinton charges and simultaneously that there’s nothing to the charges against Bush cronies unless they produce convictions in a court of law is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

Zorro says:
By your logic, if Clinton killed someone in the oval office, it would be OK for him to lie s that it didn t bring his govenment to a halt.

You might be right if I had said that it was OK for Clinton to have lied. I didn’t. I said the exact opposite, as a matter of fact. But it is true that some lies are worse than others. A lie about a side-issue in a decade-old case that ended up getting thrown out anyway is bad. Deceiving the congress and the people into an ill-advised and ill-planned war that has (so far) cost tens of thousands of lives and produced a breeding-ground for terrorism: worse.

Dugger: in terms of punishment inflicted by the legal system I’m pretty sure that the most DeLay, Rove, Libby, etc. have to fear is a similar slap on the wrist, but that doesn’t say much to the question of whether they should maintain their current powerful positions in government. What they are accused of is directly related –not just “symbolically” related — to the official duties they are entrusted with.

Neither Zorro nor any of our right-wing friends has answered my simple question yet:
“Is a small, inconsequential lie under oath worse than a big lie that is not under oath with enormous consequences?”

but lets concede what was ultimately involved here was Paul Jones sexual harassment case (not the conscience easing bravo juniper- often alleged).

Nope. Not willing to concede that. Remember this?

In arguing for impeachment and against censure, Republican members of Congress have hinted at a trove of still-secret, non-Monica-related documents about President Clinton’s sexual misconduct. “Before people look to cut a deal with the White House or their surrogates … it is my hope that one would spend plenty of time in the evidence room,” said [who was it?]. “If this were to happen, you may realize that 67 votes may appear out of thin air. If you don’t, you may wish you had before rushing to judgment.”

No, but that was never the question, and is a non-sequiter in this case. The questions re his relationship with ML were asked in order to establish a pattern of behavior regarding his treatment of female subborinates. And his numerous sexual relationships with the same, something quite germane to a sexual harrasement civil suit. For a dem, in other words, political dynamite. Especially when the “feminist” lobby is a counted on constituancy. He lied to avoid the inevitable political fallout, and embarrasment.