Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
The criminal code is not my sole moral compass. Where did you get that? You may detest what Bush did but there is no clear legal solution. You can't prosecute someone for something if they have not broken the law, even if you don't like what they did. Once you start saying that your political beliefs are more important than the system, that is when the system collapses. If you ignore the rules because you don't like the outcome, then you get anarchy. Clinton committed perjury, and in my mind there is no doubt that perjury falls under high crimes and misdemeaners. Those were the rules when Clinton entered office. Maybe the suit should have been dismissed, but that is irrelevent when determining perjury.
As far as what Bush has done, even if what you say is true, I don't see if there are any crimes he has committed. If you don't like that then you can pass laws making what Bush did a crime. But Bush did not break any laws and Clinton did.
So it is OK to lie under oath if you disagree with the validity of the case you are involved in? Of course not because almost any defendent disagrees with the validity of the case brought against them. Once Clinton took that oath of lying under the penalty of perjury everything tha that happened up to that point was irrelevant. He was under oath and had to tell the truth. I can't believe that you can't see that.
|
Both have committed crimes. The only difference is, one was prosecuted and one hasn't been yet.
If prosecuted, Bush would be found guilty. But circumstances very unlike Clinton's have made his prosecution highly unlikely. What they haven't done is make his lies any less disturbing and wrong than Clinton's. You and I can jack off this issue semantically all day, but a lie is a lie. Bush lied to put Americans in the path of bullets. Bill Clinton lied about coming in some fat girl's mouth. Distinguishing the two based on an oath being administered before one is probably the most cynical and morally vacant viewpoint I've ever heard.
