Denialism

Which is a worse lie?

—

by

MarkH
in

I’m thinking of lies from presidents and the resulting scandal. On the one hand we have the impeachment of Clinton for “I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.” On the other we have “We do not torture” from George W. Bush combined with the news that we do indeed torture people.

It is an outright lie delivered multiple times by the president to the American people. Clinton got impeached for his deception, do the Democrats have the guts to do the same for Bush’s far more serious lie which constitutes a real crime?

Comments

  1. Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD

    do the Democrats have the guts to do the same for Bush’s far more serious lie which constitutes a real crime?

    That was a rhetorical question, right? The answer is No.

    1) Impeachment is a matter for Congress, and should not be partisan as you seem to imply.

    2) The Democrats do not want to impeach Bush because they perceive that having him in office is their best campaign strategy. Although Bush will not run for re-election, all the Democrats will be running against him.

    Reply
  2. KeithB

    Telling a lie is not an impeachable offense.

    Perjury is.

    Bush *never* talks while under oath.

    Reply
  3. MarkH

    Torture is illegal. It is a violation of treaty. Treaties, according the constitution, represent the highest law of the land.

    Reply
  4. Ted

    There’s two points there:

    1. Clinton lied to me. George is torturing others. One of these I can’t abide. Riddle me which.

    2. What’s higher — The highest law of the land or the squishily immutable 15 commandants handed down by God? Adultery? Giving false witness? That’s a twofer.

    Reply
  5. Pat Curley

    Doesn’t the article say, “Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.”

    Ergo, they were not torturing people, and Bush was not lying, and your logical chain is missing a key link. You may feel that you don’t care what the Justice Department said, it’s still torture, but the debate is far from over.

    As for Clinton, the articles of impeachment which were approved in the House were for perjury and obstruction of justice. It was certainly not for his finger-waggling comment about “that woman”.

    Reply
  6. MarkH

    True it was not that specific incident that was being evaluated during the impeachment proceedings, but it was the same lie.

    Congress outlawing cruel and inhumane treatment is redundant, and having your own little peon in the Justice department to write the rules to say you can do anything you want doesn’t count as legitimate authority to supercede international treaty, US law and common decency. It’s cover, but I don’t believe it is legitimate.

    Reply
  7. Watt de Fawke

    I suggest that in January of 2009 we turn George Bush and his gang over to the Iraqi government for trial.

    Reply
  8. Dunc

    do the Democrats have the guts to do the same for Bush’s far more serious lie which constitutes a real crime?

    Well, obviously not. It’s one thing to argue about personal indiscretions, but quite another to argue that the US government might actually be subject to some sort of limitations on its power. Especially when you hope to be the one wielding that power at some point in the future…

    The US has been torturing people for decades. Who do you think set up and trained the secret police and the death squads in Latin America back in the ’70s and ’80s? Good torturers don’t grow on trees you know.

    Reply
  9. Pierce R. Butler

    I have a hypothesis, for which I have been unable to uncover evidence either supporting or opposing, as to just why the Speaker of the House is blatantly violating her plain duty under the Constitution to pursue “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the White House.

    A successful impeachment and conviction would mean that in 2008 there would be a female Democrat in the presidency. That would greatly complicate the efforts of all other Democrats vying for that position – possibly most of all the sole female candidate among them, who seems to be the only one with the pull within the Democratic Party to halt what needs to be done.

    This ploy may dovetail with the apparent “give them all the rope they need to hang themselves” passive strategy being used by the Democratic “leadership”. They seem to think this will deliver them public support by default/backlash, though at the cost of a river of blood now and in the future. Polls indicate the voters see and abhor this game-playing, but Pelosi et al seem determined to stay the course regardless.

    Can anyone here offer logical analysis or factual reports bearing on these speculations?

    Reply
  10. jre

    the squishily immutable 15 commandants handed down by God?

    I can’t tell which I like better: the phrase “squishily immutable” or Ted’s Mel Brooks reference.

    Reply
  11. Ted

    Well, I did spell commandants instead of commandments. Spell checker still can’t tell context. So feel free to just throw in some imagery from Stalag 17 (or Hogan’s Heroes) as well.

    OTOH, I was surprised to learn that there actually are like 15 commandments which makes it an even deeper Mel Brooks joke. Heh – you learn something new every day.

    Or it could be someone just screwing around in Wikipedia. 🙂

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *