At 11:41 PM 3/15/2004 -0500 Tom Beck wrote:
>> Did he do it under oath in a court of law?
>
>He lied to Congress while performing a constitutional duty (State of
>the Union address).
It isn't a lie if you believe it to be true.... and British Intelligence
*stiil* stands by that report.
And surely this so-called "lie" is no different than Clinton reneging on
his pledge of a middle class tax cut because "the deficit was bigger than I
knew" despite evidence of his own campaign contributions to the contrary?
>I think that's even worse. Clinton should never
>have been forced to undergo that deposition, as the Paula Jones lawsuit
>was clearly politically motivated.
Except that Bill Clinton himself was responsible for ensuring the passage
of the "Violence Against Women Act" through Congress, which required such
testimony. If you want to talk about undermining our republic - as some
people here apparently do - then surely arguing that you should be exempt
from your own law is certainly a start. You would think that given, ahem,
Bill Clinton's own history, that Clinton would have been a bit warrier of
signing a law that permitted investigation of a man's sexual curriculum
vitae solely on the bass of an accusation.
Indeed, I believe that even the US Supreme Court found that he was required
to testify. Or do you perhaps believe that the President should make his
own interpretation of the laws independent of the judiciary?
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
