wrote in message oups.com...
"When lies are told in court, it's perjury. When lies are told on
television
over and over again, it's not perjury. Lies are lies and the label you
apply
does not matter. I don't think Clinton's lies were OK. I think Bush's
are
worse for two reasons. "

A lie doesn;t have to be told in court for it to be perjury. Simply
being under oath, as Clinton was at the time he lied during his
deposition is sufficient for perjury.

How many Americans were killed as a result of Clinton's lie?
How many hundreds of billions of dollars did it cost us?

As to Iraq, was it a lie when Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Joe Biden,
Sandy Berger, John Kerry and a long list of other Democrats said the
exact same things about Iraq? Was it a lie when Israeli, British,
French and Russian intelligence all came to similar conclusions, that
Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs? Or is it only a lie when President
Bush said it and you seek to divide a country, diminish a president,
and help encourage our enemies in a time of war?

No one but Bush committed our troops to fight and die for
"bad intelligence". No one but Bush is guilty of mass murder
of 1800 Americans and 30,000 Iraqi civilians.

And it wasn't even "bad intelligence", it was intentionally false
intelligence that was molded to fit a specific policy.

You can spin it any way you want. History books will forever
record Mr. Bush going before the American people two days
before his invasion and claiming:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves
no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

He lied. There never was "no doubt" about his claim. And he
knew it perfectly well. He (or rather, his speech writer -- guess
who that was) chose these words carefully. He could have
said "little doubt" or "virtually no doubt" or a thousand other
phrases. But he (and they) chose to lie to support his inane
policy of "preventive" invasion.