Amnesty International slams US

There were abuses of prisoners and the Koran at Gitmo.

What Newsweek reported was true.

The government lied about said truth.

Newsweek apologized for telling the truth.

Tico, Clinton did mislead rather lie-it all involves what constitutes sexual relations- remember?

Anyway, enough of this. I think your plan to prove a point didn't quite work out.

We have investigated Clinton so we know what lies he may have tried to hold back. We have not investigated the abuses in the prisons or the Bush administration so we don't know what lies they may have held back.

parados wrote:

Tico,
What was the lie Clinton told?

I see lots of instances of telling factually true statements based on narrow definitions to give an impression that they might mean something else.

Clinton himself stated

Quote:

As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information

How can it be accurate and a lie?

Definition of sexual relationship is "intercourse". That is certainly not a lie. It was a weasel perhaps in it gave an impression that there was no sexual contact at all but there is no evidence that they did have intercourse.

We can argue word meanings all day but then we get to the same issue with Bush. The meanings of words and if they mean what you think or we think. Based on Bush's statements, Bush weaseled. He intentionally gave an impression that wasn't true.

Clinton misled about his affair. Bush misled about WMD. Not much difference between the two.

What lie? Where to start?

How about when he was asked "At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?" His response: "I don't recall ..." Do you find that factually accurate?

How about this exchange:

Quote:

Q. Certainly if it happened, nothing remarkable would have occurred?

A. No, nothing remarkable. I don't remember it.

You think that was a factually accurate statement?

He lied ... that's why he lost his license to practice law -- his misleading testimony.

We know Clinton "weaseled" out of a desire to mislead, knowing he was telling an untruth. That isn't the case with Bush. That's what you anti-Bush folks can't seem to understand .... you insist that he started the war on false pretenses, and "lied" to get us to war, but it's just not the case.

Intrepid wrote:

We may not get the truth today and we may not get the truth tomorrow, but the truth will come out and history will record it.

That depends what you mean by the word "get."

:wink:

Intrepid wrote:

I replied, but the system froze before it got to the thread.

What I was posting was to the effect that you know as well as I do that it is very difficult to "prove" a lie unless the admition comes from the prevaricator's own lips or from photographic evidence. You indicated that you would believe a lie detector no matter who took it because they are unreliable. I take this to mean that you would not believe them. You claimed that Bill Clinton lied, but you did not indicate what he lied about or what proof you have to back up this claim. I doubt that this will go anywhere but except in circles with he said she said testimonials. I doubt very much that you will belief the link either.

http://hnn.us/articles/1506.html

---



Here you go:

Quote:

Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time - never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people.

That was Clinton on TV on January 26, 1998. Here's the VIDEO


Earlier, in a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit, Clinton swore under oath as follows:

Quote:

Deposition in the Jones sexual harassment lawsuit

January 17, 1998

(The full text of the deposition is also online.)

Q. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?

A. I don't recall, but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She - it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I don't have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there, we're working all the time, and typically I would do some work on one of the days of the weekends in the afternoon.

Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening?

A. Yes, that's correct. It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible.

. . .

Q. Have you ever met with Monica Lewinsky in the White House between the hours of midnight and six a.m.?

A. I certainly don't think so.

Q. Have you ever met -

A. Now, let me just say, when she was working there, during, there may have been a time when we were all - we were up working late. There are lots of, on any given night, when the Congress is in session, there are always several people around until late in the night, but I don't have any memory of that. I just can't say that there could have been a time when that occurred, I just - but I don't remember it.

Q. Certainly if it happened, nothing remarkable would have occurred?

A. No, nothing remarkable. I don't remember it.

. . .

Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?

A. No.

Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?

A. It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.

Q. I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.

. . .

A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her.

He also lied about the affair in an interview with Jim Lehrer, in a telephone interview with Roll Call, and an interview with NPR, all on January 21, 1998.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whatclintonsaid.htm


Clinton also denied the affair with Lewinsky in a sworn affidavit he filed in the Paula Jones lawsuit.

---

Six months later, when it was clear his lies were catching up to him, he came clean. On August 17, 1998, after Lewinsky testified about their sexual encounters, Clinton testified before a grand jury and admitted to the affair. He also said the following on national TV:

Quote:

As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.

But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.

I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.

http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_441.html


As I said, Clinton is a self-admitted liar, and he lied under oath.

I believe that Clinton is correct, he was factual correct in all his statements but the statements were nevertheless misleading statements. Even his Paula Jones statements were only misleading which is why the judge could only charge Clinton with contempt.

The point I said you failed in making evidently escapes you. Clyop said that no telling what else they lied about. Then you came back with something like, "well, Clinton lied…" We already know all of Clinton lies or misleading statements because he has been investigated to death over his sex life. So there is no mystery of "who knows what else Clinton lied about since he lied about before".

Defending Bush at this point on this point , and even remotely thinking that there are grounds for comparison is about as assinine as it gets.

revel wrote:

I believe that Clinton is correct, he was factual correct in all his statements but the statements were nevertheless misleading statements. Even his Paula Jones statements were only misleading which is why the judge could only charge Clinton with contempt.

You think he was factually correct when he said he couldn't remember if he'd every been alone with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office? Speaking as a guy, I can assure you that you remember, even if you are the President of the United States, getting a BJ from a woman. Perhaps you think he truly couldn't recall if there was anyone else in the room at the
time?

me: He was factually correct because it was a public place and people were around all the time or there could have been a time when they were completely alone and he didn't pay attention to it. So when he said he don't recall, I guess he meant that does not he recall if he was alone. Pretty simple really.

Quote:

The point I said you failed in making evidently escapes you. Clyop said that no telling what else they lied about. Then you came back with something like, "well, Clinton lied…" We already know all of Clinton lies or misleading statements because he has been investigated to death over his sex life. So there is no mystery of "who knows what else Clinton lied about since he lied about before".

See? You did fail to grasp my point, which is why I asked you to identify what you felt my point was. My point, so you know, was to highlight how absurd it is to ask the question when you know something has been done at least one time, how many times to you suppose it's been done that we don't know about? Maybe it's been done thousands of other times, maybe not even a single other time. What is the point of fantasizing about the possibilities?

Ok ok ok....
No one will argue that lying is lying and misleading is misleading...any more than killing is killing.
Everyone here quantifies each one of these things in matters of degrees. Lying about eating the last chocolate brownie is of a different kind than Uncle Chester lying about what he does with Niece Nancy at summer camp.
Agreed?
Misleading your kids on an easter egg hunt is of a different kind than misleading a young couple into thinking that their life savings are being wisely invested by Christopher Rockefeller.

Lying about who, if anyone, sucked your d!ck is of a different kind than lying about non existent WMD and knowingly selling faulty intelligence.
Misleading an impeachment trial about who, if anyone sucked your d!ck is of a different kind than misleading a nation into a war that is now costing hundereds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives.

Call it lying, call it misleading...the fact is the outcomes and the consequences of the lies by one administration far outweigh the lies of the other.
Defending Bush at this point on this point , and even remotely thinking that there are grounds for comparison is about as assinine as it gets.

Ticomaya wrote:

You think he was factually correct when he said he couldn't remember if he'd every been alone with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office? Speaking as a guy, I can assure you that you remember, even if you are the President of the United States, getting a BJ from a woman. Perhaps you think he truly couldn't recall if there was anyone else in the room at the time?

me: He was factually correct because it was a public place and people were around all the time or there could have been a time when they were completely alone and he didn't pay attention to it. So when he said he don't recall, I guess he meant that does not he recall if he was alone. Pretty simple really.

It's all about Clinton, because if it wasn't about Clinton then we might actually have to talk about the abuse that Amnesty International cited.

I reread the excerpts you left and I noticed that at one point Clinton said that it's possible late at night when Monica brought him something she would be the only there. So again, he misled but didn't commit perjury.