Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.
|
1) What crime did Bush commit. Seriously?
2) If there is no difference between lying and lying under oath then does that mean we should repeal the perjury law, or prosecute people every time they lie?
