Well, if you can't 'prove' that someone lied because you can't get into their brain and see their motivation, then the impeachment of Clinton was wrong and much of what passes (LOL) for law 'enforcement' in this country is also wrong.
"I did not have sex with that woman" is different than "Iraq has an active WMD program". The 1st is a statement about your own actions. The later is a statement about something you believe to be true. You could believe that Iraq was doing things that it was not. OTOH if you believe that you aren't doing things that you are than you are either crazy, mentally deficient or a liar. If Clinton was crazy or sufficiently mentally deficient to not know about his relationship with Lewinsky than that would have been even a better reason to remove him from office than his perjury. If he wanted to, or his lawyers wanted to, use the insanity defense than it was open to them, even if it would be a highly unusual defense in a perjury case.
"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong, and in some cases deliberately misleading, and for that I am disappointed and I regret it," Powell said in May."
That indicates that, in the opinion of Powell, the source providing the intelligence was inaccurate or in some cases misleading (which may mean lying). That doesn't amount to "I was lied to by the administration", or even "the administration lied." The sources where mostly Iraqis, people like Chalabi. |
