Is this rational AT ALL?

Question

Someone posted the following in answer to a question in this section:

"um, starr found quite a lot. the differenece between libby and clinton is that clinton has openly conceded that he lied whereas libby still holds that he cant remember a 3yr old conversation. and clinton actually lied about thigs that were criminal - libby, even if he did lie, wouldnt have been covering up any wrong doings.

i just wish he would have went after the white water scandals instead - then clinton really would have been up a creek and we wouldnt be worrying about hillary."

The assertion seems to be that "even if" Libby perjured himself (he was convicted of perjury; Bill Clinton was not), it's okay because he was lying about something insignificant, whereas Clinton's lies about his sex life were criminal.

Now, suddenly, the right wing is accepting the "subject matter" defense for perjury? For years, when liberals have said they don't care that Clinton lied because (more to come...)

he lied about his sex life, conservatives have said it doesn't matter what he lied about, that the point was, he lied under oath. But now, with Libby lying about a CIA leak (something which certainly has more public relevance than the activities of Clinton's penis), it's okay because CIA leaks aren't important?

Am I reading this correctly????

sway: I don't recall asking anything about Libby; want to try again with that answer?

kujigafy: Oh, excellent points. Could you please show me where he was convicted of those crimes? Or did people just allege that he committed them? I could say you murdered my fiance, too, but unless I can prove it, my accusation means nothing.

Answer 1

That is called the post of a weak minded Republican looking to spin the truth. Sad really. I read it the same way you did I believe. I didn't know lying about getting a BJ was more criminal than lying about and obstructing a CIA investigation that was a matter of national security.


Gee let me guess who wrote that... above me maybe...lmao.

Answer 2

Who cares whether Clinton shagged Ms. L.? He was a criminal for wasting taxpayers money and bombing innocent people.

Yeah, of course Clinton lied because the USA is a silly prudish society where this is more important than anything else. I guess he felt the need to lie. But politicians lie all the time.

Bush is a greater criminal for lying in order to wage war.

Answer 3

The law is very clear, perjury is perjury. Whether you lie under oath about stealing a million dollars or lie under oath about stealing a pen off your bosses desk, it is the same. There can be no distinction made here. Libby was convicted and has been sentenced, Clinton was not convicted or punished. The legal system did its job in both cases.

Answer 4

Right, because there are so many similarities between "I don't recall (a conversation I've slept over 1,000 times since having)" and "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman."

But you are comparing apples and oranges. The President committing perjury and the President PARDONING a perjuror is the real comparison here.

The question, "Is it rational?" is just a way of insulting another user. I don't defend the answers of other users, and I'm pretty sure that it is a violation of TOS to ask this kind of question.

Wyldfyr: Frivolous lawsuits don't result in disbarments.

Answer 5

he lied about obstructing the justice system and absuing his power. it was also shown that vernon jordan personally doctored affidavids and asked people to lie under oath.

he also gropped women and exposed himself in an attempt to force himself upon them.

you call that a 'sex life' i call that sexual harrasment. which, last time i checked, is a crime.

whereas, outing someone who WAS NOT a covert agent, is not a crime.

oh not excellent point, because there's no evidence that i murdered your fiance; there was quite a bit of evidence of the things clinton did. and we're not talking about whether or not he was convicted, we're talking about whether or not he was guilty of those things which Congress and the EIGHT women who testified as Jane Does in the Jones SEXUAL HARRASSMENT case, agreed that he was guilty. Hey,OJ wasnt convicted either, guess that means he's innocent too.

edit2:a weak minded person feels the need to draw conclusions like that im a republican or that this argument has anything to do with pre-emptive wars (which i dont support since im not a neocon). really, at least some of the people here whom i totally disagree with are adressing the actual topic which was the difference between clinton and libby. not iraq.

Answer 6

Actually what Libby perjured himself over was a crime and his perjury hindered prosecution. This was a case that compromised national security and put a federal agent in danger. Clinton's alleged perjury (he was never convicted) was in a civil case for sexual harassment, which could very easily have been construed as a frivolous lawsuit.

Answer 7

He lied to protect the rest of the administration that are guilty of outing Plame.

It isn't a matter of the subject matter, they are just defending the administration from blame.

Answer 8

Don't worry. The guy is brainwashed. He would jump off a cliff with Libby, if Libby asked to him to.

Answer 9

he more than likely liked, not only to protect himself from a scandal , but to protect his family too.

Whatever the case might be, it was not "perjury" as Monica was not "pertinent" to the case.

Answer 10

Irrational.

Sexcapades are bad, and a bogus pre-emptive war is OK?

Who are the real fools?