SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (191376)6/22/2004 2:42:44 PM
From: SilentZ  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573433
 
>Why is we can see that lying about BJs is wrong but you can't see why lying about Iraq is even more wrong?

>And if you answer that Bush didn't lie, then my response is neither did Clinton.

The difference is that the Dems haven't been able to railroad Bush into testifying under oath...

-Z



To: tejek who wrote (191376)6/23/2004 12:01:43 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573433
 
Let me see......lying about WMDs and al Qa'ida links vs lying about a BJ. Yes, lying about the BJ is wrong but in the grand scheme of things, fairly petty

1 - My point was that it was wrong. I was responding to someone who said if Clinton wasn't married that the whole situation wouldn't even be a little bit wrong. You apparently are agreeing with my point.

2 - Clearly lying under oath, or in other words commiting perjury, compared to being wrong on WMD.

If a president acts on incorrect information in instituting a major policy it will have more impact then lying about a BJ. But perjury is illegal and is more clearly wrong then anything Bush has done. More clearly wrong doesn't mean more important or having more of an impact. Obviously Bush's Iraq policy has had a lot more impact that any BJ's in the oval office.

And if you answer that Bush didn't lie, then my response is neither did Clinton.

Clinton clearly lied. There is no hard evidence that Bush did.

Tim