Hypocrisy?
2007-07-26 09:20:47 · 28 answers · asked by Abu#2 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They turn their cheeks when it's one of their own, but will crucify any Republican they can.
2007-07-26 09:23:19 · answer #1 · answered by Karma 6 · 4⤊ 7⤋
Clinton lied to protect himself from embarrassment when he was asked about his affair with Monica. He lied during the discovery phase in the civil case brought by Paula Jones. He was actually provided with a set of definitions by Jone's lawyers which said that sexual affair meant "sexual intercourse". The first time he answered the question of whether he had a sexual affair with Monica, he was telling the truth. However, Starr had the definition changed to where sexual affair included what Clinton did with Monica. Clinton did not notice the change in definitions and continued to deny the sexual affair. In other words, Starr set a trap, but Clinton was being careless and was parsing. Clinton's lie, that he did nothing sexual with Monica, was irrelevant to the case by Paula Jones who said he harassed her 8 years earlier. Nonetheless, Clinton paid dearly for the lie, and was almost kicked out of office.
Gonzales may have lied to cover up dealings and policies within the administration that were contrary to the Constitution and other statutes. Testimony of others has indicated that US Attorneys were fired because, among other things, they did not prosecute Democrats when these US Attorneys felt they did not have a strong enough case. Gonzales wanted them prosecuted anyway, simply because they were Democrats and this would hurt the Democratic Party's chances to gain more seats in Congress. It should go without saying that such politicization of the Justice Department is bad for our country. Put the shoe on the other foot, and make this a Democratic administration, and you will agree.
Gonzales continually parses his words on most of the issues that he's asked about. His own testimony and statements have been contradictory in several very material respects. The questions and matters that Congress is probing directly relate to his job and his job performance; they are not about his extra curricular activities.
All lies are not equal, and if Clinton was subject to investigation by a special prosecutor, certainly Gonzales should be
2007-07-26 16:31:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Clinton was disbarred because of perjury. He was allowed to remain president because lying about sex doesn't have anything to do with his job. Gonzales lied about something that was important to the going on of the government. I will be fair and say he should only be disbarred as well. This would of course not make him a good Attorney General (I would imagine you have to be an attorney to be Attorney General). No hypocrisy, just logic.
2007-07-26 16:32:36 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm a Democrat and I didn't give Clinton a free pass.
Even so there's a difference between the lies. One of the lies was about a personal affair, the other was about government business.
A thousand Monica's wouldn't change the nature of our country, but an unfair change in the federal judicial system does.
Again, one was a lie about a personal affair, the other was about government business. Neither were good, and neither deserve a free pass, but of the two, clearly Gonzales' actions were the worst.
2007-07-26 16:26:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Why did the Republicans give Reagan a free pass for lying but not Clinton? Why don't we stop trying to justify one mistake with another?
2007-07-26 16:31:16 · answer #5 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Get over it that was 10 years ago. Live in the now.
Bill Clinton is a conservatives answer to everything. "even though I don't believe in global warming it's bill clintons fault"
One way or another it doesn't change the fact that Alberto repeatedly LIED while under OATH.
It's been so much fun watching cap'n george sink with his ship and looks like it's about to continue. Call up Guiness because he's about one percentage point from being the most despised president in modern history.
2007-07-26 16:25:57 · answer #6 · answered by Franklin 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Why did Republicans go after Clinton like white on rice for lying, but give Gonzales a free pass?
2007-07-26 16:23:29 · answer #7 · answered by ck4829 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
As I recall the dems did not say it was OK to lie about getting the BJ. They just didn't think that it warrants impeachment.
Why do the cons give Bush a free pass about Iraq. They knew Iraq did not pose a threat to the US, had no nukes, had no link to 9/11. They all knew of PNAC. Yet why did they allow Americans to be sent to Iraq to die anyway? Isn't this more important than lying about a BJ?
2007-07-26 16:26:00 · answer #8 · answered by expose_neocons 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
They tried to impeach Clinton! But sometime I do think both sides make a mountain out of a mole hill.
2007-07-26 16:26:01 · answer #9 · answered by Jack 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hypocrisy?
Yes, but don't deny it is not on both side. How can republican call for Clinton's head and not Alberto's?
Hypocrisy?
2007-07-26 16:24:47 · answer #10 · answered by Food For Thought 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Clinton lied about a private matter involving an extramarital affiar.
Gonzalez lied about the firing of US Attorneys who were investigating possible crimes committed by members of the Bush Administration, including the President.
2007-07-26 16:24:53 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋