…that perjury is a “technicality” only when Republicans [allegedly] do it? But when it’s a Democrat and a blowjob, it’s grounds for impeachment.
Update: Dylan has similar thoughts on the matter.
Of interest
- About Me
- Sex-positive feminism reference
- Carnival of Feminists XXI
- Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy V
- Amazon Wish List
Subscribe
- Entries RSS - all
- Entries RSS - actual blog posts only (no Twitter or del.icio.us)
- Comments RSS
Your hostess
Archives
Categories
- Blog (1831)
- del.icio.us links (490)
- Twitter tweets (589)
Me, elsewhere
- Georgia Podcast Network
- PodCamp Atlanta (2007)
- Sex 2.0
- Download Squad (formerly)
- Pro-Porn Activism (occasionally)
- Radlanta
- Literally, A Web Log
- CSS Insider (defunct)
YASPs
Upcoming Events
READ ME: Disclaimer
14 Responses to "Has anyone else noticed…"
I’ve just given up trying to point out the Republican’s hypocrisy. The general public doesn’t have the intelligence to see it anyway. Bunch of dumb sheep.
It depends what the definition of “is” is…
OMG!!1! The famous Patrick Fitzgerald is commenting on my blog!! Oh, wait… it’s just the infamous Patrick Fitzgerald, never mind…
Well, I’m a pretty nonpartisan guy, but your post leads me to ask– which is it?
Is it a waste of resources to pursue charges for perjury and obstruction, or isn’t it?
By no means is it a waste of resources to pursue charges for perjury and obstruction of justice. And President Clinton was rightfully investigated, but inproperly indicted.
He did not commit perjury according the rules laid out prior to the hearings (the infamous ‘that depends on what the definition of is is’). Sure, the guy lied about cheating on his wife and that’s an awful, awful thing. But legally, the evidence shows he did not commit perjury and that he didn’t obstruct justice.
That may or may not be the case with Rove, Libbly and (apparently) Cheney. But it’s worth investigating and holding grand jury trials.
Damn, Jmac beat me to answering. What he said.
Furthermore - Garrett, I’m betting you would agree to me that cheating on one’s wife and matters of national security can’t exactly be compared issues of equal weight.
Absolutely. But in either case, if the President commits perjury or obstructs justice, I do want him out of office. It has nothing to do with his penis or his marriage, and everything to do with lying under oath and instructing other people to do the same. Ugh, now I sound like a Republican. For everyone’s information, I’M NOT!!!
Correct. Cheating on one’s spouse (husband, wife, neither, both) is far more egregious than being a traitor.
Or what is patriotism, really?
Yes and no Charles.
Cheating on one’s spouse is an awful sin which betrays one of - if not the - most sacred committments in our society and shouldn’t be treated lightly.
But, when you’re a national figure with responsibility for keeping the country safe, then it’s hard to suggest that infidelity is more heinous than putting the lives of millions of people in peril.
Of course, I agree with Garrett in the grand scheme of things … perjury is perjury, and it doesn’t matter the circumstances which led to the perjury.
That’s quite a noble sentiment, Charles, but cheating on one’s spouse isn’t going to put the security of the country at risk, get American soldiers needlessly killed, sink the economy into the toilet, take money away from the lower and middle classes while giving more breaks to the richest 1%, destroy the environment, roll civil liberties back a hundred years or more, or garner the political disdain of other countries around the world.
Amber: try cheating on my spouse and see if you still believe that.
/she’s got a wicked left hook too
The question with Clinton (for me) was never the infidelity. Sure, it shows a lack of character and utter disrespect for one’s obligations, but as Amber points out, it doesn’t affect much that Clinton was cheating on his wife. Lying on the stand is a whole other issue, and should be treated seriously no matter what circumstances bring it about.
See, jmac, the thing is, I do think it DOES matter what the circumstances are. Obviously, perjury and obstruction in a trial, say, to investigate a missing nickel off of Ken Starr’s desk is a far cry from lying about a national security leak.
Another example: let’s say it comes out that the president paid for an abortion, and abortions are illegal in our hypothetical world. He lies about said abortion during a trial. I don’t have any problem with his obtaining an abortion from a Presidential standpoint, but I do have a problem with him lying. To me, the charge of perjury in this case is just as worthy of pursuit as any other such charge, because of what they say about this president regardless of the matter at hand when he committed it. If we bring up our elected officials on charges of stealing the cookie from the cookie jar, I expect them not to lie on the stand about it, plain and simple.
After the fact, I’ll condemn President Leaker-Perjurer far more decisively than President Adulterer-Perjurer, because one has a far more material effect on Important Civil Issues. But both are worthy of pursuing, IMO.
How can betraying the most sacred commitment be “less heinous” than putting millions of lives in peril? If it is sacrosanct, then it is, and not something less than a nation of millions. Johnathan, what is the condition of something being sacred?
Amber, certainly cheating on one’s spouse won’t bring about all of those things you mentioned (except in some very bizarre situation appropriate to a Le Carré novel).
But I make no utilitarian judgments about the ‘cost’ of one’s betrayal of a lover and one’s betrayal of a country. When a person’s marriage falls apart over betrayal, there is a far more personal and subjective destitution than when a nation falls apart. I place the primacy in the lover, not in the state, and although betrayal of the state can lead to the deaths of thousands, the loss of the beloved is the end of a subject altogether.
This is the question: is it really national security or personal security that triumphs? Look carefully to the sort of moral structure you’re invoking to justify one’s betrayal as less monstrous than another, because when we put the state above our beloved, we sacrifice love for another for love of the state. There is no sense in arguing for the “privacy” of the individual any longer, because what private things lovers do pales in comparison to the need of the state to know what is going on for the sake of security.
Millions of lives are at stake, afterall—or so the rhetoric is.
Charles, this is an apples-and-oranges comparison. Perhaps I indicated it earlier, but the more I think about it the more I really do think it’s quite impossible to try to lay these scenarios side-by-side and say one is more proper or more important than the other.
Breaking the sacred vows of marriage are a tragic thing, and I don’t believe anyone here is arguing otherwise. For Christians, for instance, these are vows taken in front of family, your friends, your spouse and God. Breaking these vows, as I’ve said, is no small thing to be dismissed.
But, as you noted, the breaking of these vows are intensely personal. The damage is done to the perpetrator and to the victim (and, in some cases, children).
This is a wholly different scenario than, say, someone selling a black-market nuclear bomb to a terrorist, betraying one’s country and watching as said terrorist proceeds to kill millions of innocent lives.
A national leader commits oneself to serving one’s country, and then means protecting the lives of one’s country. If said leader or other public figure breaks his oath with the people - and for a Christian, there is surely a person committment stemming from his or her faith to protect his or her people - then the blood is on their hands.
I don’t think neither one, in retrospect, is more terrible than the other. It’s the nature of the sins (as you again noted) in that one deeply affects the lives of a small group of invididuals, while the other impacts the lives of many, many more people.