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.

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?

Only the simplest of minds think that expressing opinions aids the enemy.
Hitler got his power from such fools.


"Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia: Only a lunatic likes to see soldiers die.
But, the
intent of these campaigns was purportedly to save people from bad
things, to
use a simplified reason. Your president said the same thing about Iraq
-
save Iraqis from a leader who killed his own people. Remember? So,
let's not
assign relative value to wars, OK? "

What the hell does that mean? That is was OK when troops died under
Clinton, but not Bush? Or that when a war isn't going as well as one
would like, being a monday morning quarterback, that you just now want
to switch sides?

Did you notice much public outcry against our involvement in those three
places? No, you did not, except perhaps for the way Somalia turned out. Why
do you suppose the country was not so divided then as it is now?