WASHINGTON – A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks….
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
Big question is, what the hell took so long to do this study?
{ 8 comments }
Big question 2 is, will anyone pay attention to it? And big question 3 is, will it change anything?
I would love love LOVE to see impeachment proceedings come from this, but that’s a silly hope, since neither of them have committed the unforgivable sin of receiving fellatio.
I wish I could get paid to state the obvious.
Hey, would you want to read everything ever said by W and staff? Seriously, how many people quit after the first day? j/k
Not fellatio, perjury. I’m no fan of W. But Clinton committed perjury in a sexual harassment case. Just because the man was a dem and not as horrific as our current pres, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold him accountable for his bad acts.
935’s a big number, at least 600-700 more than the President himself can count up to.
Actually, he didn’t. When he made his settlement with Robert Ray, he only admitted to giving “misleading testimony,” which I’m pretty sure our resident lawyers would say is not the same thing as perjury.
You can say that he lied in the case, and that he was an asshole for doing so, but perjury has a very specific meaning under the law that the judge, Congress, and Robert Ray all found was not met regarding Clinton’s testimony.
Comparing Bush and Clinton, what’s worse: possible perjury (not proven) about a sexual relationship or pardoning a convicted perjurer?
Sorry, but the whole “Clinton committed perjury!” thing was something that Ann Coulter came up with and it still won’t die despite the fact that he was never found to have done so under the law.
Clinton may not have admitted to committing perjury. OJ hasn’t admitted to murder (technically). I’ve yet to meet a rapist who admits he’s a rapist.
Many people have committed illegal acts and failed to be convicted. And (as a lawyer) I know that perjury is almost impossible to prove. Sure I think Bush is a bigger asshat than Clinton, there’s no comparison. But I as a matter of principle we shouldn’t support a person who sexual harasses women and lies under about it. If Clinton was a Republican the feminist community would have crucified him for what he did. Instead we treat it as a childish indiscretion. It’s ridiculous.
It’s not even clear that he should have been charged with perjury at all. You could argue that he has no responsibility to answer questions about consensual sexual relationships during a sexual harassment lawsuit. Ken Starr was on a fishing expedition and spent $60 million of taxpayer money so we could all find out that Bill Clinton, noted horndog, had an affair. Well, duh. We knew that when we elected him.
I sometimes feel like the only person who remembers seeing Bill and Hillary on 60 Minutes before the 1992 election when Hillary said, “Not everyone has a monogamous marriage, you know.”
There are a lot better reasons to hate Bill Clinton than fooling around with a consenting intern. Backing down on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, NAFTA, welfare “reform,” Defense of Marriage Act, failure of universal healthcare, etc etc etc. I see no reason to waste my energy condemning him for something I knew he was probably going to do anyway.
Comments on this entry are closed.