Compare and contrast

[libertango]

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George W. Bush, 17 March 2003

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky."
Bill Clinton, January 1998

Both of these statements now appear to be equally false.

Yet, despite the appearance of both statements to have been lies "with knowledge aforethought," one of the speakers appears to have so far escaped any harm to his reputation -- despite the fact that his lie put thousands of US troops at risk, while the other's was merely a personal peccadillo.

As a conservative once famously said, "Where's the outrage?"

Comments

[ashley-y.livejournal.com]

The second was made under oath.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

No, actually, Clinton's comment was made at a press conference. It's the one where Mrs. Clinton is at his side, and he's hitting the podium with each syllable.

But, as may be... If Mr. Bush has not been under oath on this matter, Messrs. Powell and Rumsfeld certainly have.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Have been trying to find an article I saw on CNN a day or so ago, by a legal advisor to the President (didn't mention which President). He now lectures in law, and he said that when his students asked him, in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, "should we believe the President when he says that Iraq has WoMD" he told them yes, because the statements were unequivocal and no President after Nixon would ever dare make such unequivocal statements without qualifiers such as "it is believed" - particularly on a matter of such importance - unless the President knew that what he was saying was factually true.

Now, looking at the evidence, he says it looks as if the President was lying - and there certainly ought to be an investigation to establish this, because if the President was lying, he ought to be impeached.

[ashley-y.livejournal.com]

Oh no, to impeach someone is to accuse them of a crime. I don't think such a lie would be a crime.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

As I said, I wish I could find that damn article on CNN. Certainly this legal advisor seemed to feel that for th President to use his Presidential powers/authority for political actions was an impeachable offense.

[atlaz.livejournal.com]

You don't believe that the president intentionally misleading the very people he is supposed to represent in order to garner support for a war is a serious lie?

If Clinton can be impeached for lying about a largely personal matter unrelated to his presidency (ignore for a moment the question of whether his flawed judgement is related or not), surely the same should be expected for someone who lied and sent men and women to kill and be killed based on a falsehood?

[ashley-y.livejournal.com]

No, it may be a 'serious lie', but I don't believe it's a crime.

Clinton was impeached (but then acquitted) for lying under oath. That was a crime, or at least sufficiently looked like one that he was impeached. I suppose it wasn't a crime in the end because he was indeed acquitted.

Bush, on the other hand, cannot be impeached if it doesn't look like he committed a crime.

We are a nation of laws, we can't start prosecuting people for "doing bad stuff" just because we don't like it, they have to have actually broken some law.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

See this article Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction - Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense? (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0606-05.htm) by John W. Dean, for an outline on why it may indeed be a crime for Bush to have made false claims about WoMD in Iraq in order to get the US to go to war.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

And we do know Dean has... experience in these matters. {cough}

(I haven't looked at the article yet, so this isn't a comment on the strength of it. It's just Dean can be used as a straight man for all kinds of jokes regarding this topic.)

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Really? Why? (I'd never heard of him before reading this article.)

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

John Dean worked as Special Counsel to the President during the Nixon Administration -- essentially, Nixon's personal lawyer. He was one of the star witnesses during the Watergate hearings. Some even believe Dean was the auteur, if you will, of Watergate.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Ah! Thank you. I have to admit that at least 50% of what I know about Watergate I found out here (http://www.plaidder.com/waterg.htm) - while the habit of adding "gate" to a noun to name a political scandal got to the UK, the ins and outs of Watergate didn't.