Quote:
Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I think we get the difference.
The question isn't the relative legality. The question is, Is lying under oath about a personal sexual matter between two consenting adults a greater wrong, a more serious matter, rising to the level of an impeachable offense, than lying about the presence of WMDs in Iraq to ensure public support needed to pursue a war?
Republicans say yes. Democrats say no.
|
Wrong. Its apples and oranges. Regardless of the subject matter of the case, perjury is a crime. Perjury by a lawyer on his own behalf, while not a separate statutory defense (I don't think, but I am not really a lawyer so why would i know) is somewhat more viscerally shocking to the conscience, for obvious reasons. Perjury by the Chief Executive Officer of the Country a bit more so. But at the end of the day, its a legal process question and there is no question he should have suffered the consequences of his scofflawism at the hands of the process.
If y'all are so convinced that Bush lied, and I am not sure it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt or otherwise, take it the appropriate forum, which in this case is the American electorate. Actually, that's a great idea. Next time Bush runs for re-election you democrats and your comrades in the liberal party should make Bush's alleged lies about WMDs and justification for the war a major campaign issue. The American people will surely see the convincing righteousness of your assertions and he will be voted out of office. Then maybe you convince the Hague to indict for War Crimes.
Good luck with this approach, no need to thank me.
Threaded Mode