?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
20 September 2003 @ 11:23 am
Upside of the times...  
So, the British Labor Party has started to lose seats in Parliament, believed to be a rebuff to Tony Blair.

We discussed this also in my human rights class (which realy just ends up being discussions of all the politics we find of interest). Clinton lied about a sexual relationship, and he was impeached. Bush lied about starting a war of aggression, and no one seems to mind because September eleventh is like his "do whatever the fuck you want" card. Blair lied to the British people, and you know what? The British people got angry. They're not letting him off the hook nearly as easily as America has seemed to let off its president. They're demanding to be taken seriously.

Again, people wonder why I like the British. Seriously, it's not just the music.
 
 
Mood: encouraged
 
 
 
Laudrelaudre on September 20th, 2003 08:48 am (UTC)
Clinton committed perjury. That's why he was impeached. Granted, I still don't think what he lied about was politically important, but still, he did lie under oath. Still, Clinton lied about sex and screwed an intern. Bush lied about justifications for war and has screwed, in order, the City of Houston, the American people, and the United States Armed Forces.

Still, Clinton and the Democratic Party have been taken to task when they've screwed the American people -- the so-called Assault Weapons Ban cost the Dems control of Congress.
Mellenabsentmammoth on September 20th, 2003 09:08 am (UTC)
I was over-simplifying, I know, but the amount of difference of public reaction is still just staggering to me. And highly disappointing, in my opinion.
S0n of N00nbibble on September 20th, 2003 09:10 am (UTC)
blah blah blah. with sex had NOTHING to do with his business dealings, which was SUPPOSED to be what he was on trial for. morality was a red herring for slander, and perjury was a technicality.
Laudrelaudre on September 20th, 2003 09:17 am (UTC)
Technicality?

That the testimony given under oath is the whole, complete, and unmitigated truth, save for the protection granted by the Fifth Amendment, is one of the key foundations of our justice system.

No, it wasn't relevant, or even important. Ken Starr wasted millions of taxpayer dollars trying to discredit Clinton, and the best he could do was prying into an irrelevant part of Clinton's personal life, something that shouldn't have been brought even if what Clinton did with Lewinsky was both unethical and immoral -- after all, having an affair isn't illegal (well, it might be technically illegal, but there isn't a state left that prosecutes it). But Clinton still shouldn't have lied about it.
S0n of N00nbibble on September 20th, 2003 09:23 am (UTC)
should have could have would have - who's to say what someone SHOULD do when faced with a system of LAW that's being used for things IT shouldn't in the first place? if the law is wrong it doesn't MATTER if it's illigal. think of all those illegal slaves who tried to escape or rise up, and were put down by massa's guns or whips or, you know, armies or whatever.

anyway starr was just the acting public head of that mess. clinton was as much an insider as bush, worked for the same people, for the same ends. he is a liar and a bastard and he was discredited by HIS OWN PEOPLE, chastized so they could maneuver in bush in his stead.
337common_as_stone on September 20th, 2003 09:29 am (UTC)
"clinton was as much an insider as bush, worked for the same people, for the same ends. he is a liar and a bastard and he was discredited by HIS OWN PEOPLE, chastized so they could maneuver in bush in his stead."
well said.
Laudrelaudre on September 20th, 2003 09:33 am (UTC)
It isn't a matter of law so much as a matter of the principle on which said law is based.

Quite simply, how can you hold a fair trial when you cannot trust that the testimony given is the truth as the speaker understands it? That's why perjury is a crime -- it undermines the entire justice system.

It was wrong to ask Clinton that question. But the proper protest would have been to refuse to answer it, not to lie under oath.
Mellen: Kangaete imasu...absentmammoth on September 20th, 2003 10:49 am (UTC)
As Eddie Izzard, both great comedian and political observationist, noted (in regard to Clinton, partly) we have levels of severity of murder, we should have levels in the severity of perjury.

"Perjury one is saying there was no Holocaust when millions of people died in it, and perjury ten is saying you shagged someone when you didn't."

I think lying about reasons to engage in a full-scale war counts as a level one offense in lying, on the stand or no.
(Deleted comment)
Mellenabsentmammoth on September 20th, 2003 09:06 am (UTC)
Approval is "letting off the hook" when such huge violations of trust are involved, in my mind.
(Deleted comment)
Mellenabsentmammoth on September 22nd, 2003 09:55 pm (UTC)
If people want the president to lie about war in the first place, the people need impeaching.
337common_as_stone on September 20th, 2003 09:13 am (UTC)
clinton was impeached?
S0n of N00nbibble on September 20th, 2003 09:17 am (UTC)
"impeached". in quotes. you have to talk about all politics "in quotes" these days, otherwise you risk being taken seriously.
337common_as_stone on September 20th, 2003 09:32 am (UTC)
i hate being taken seriously.
S0n of N00n: Here's what -I- think happened...bibble on September 20th, 2003 09:38 am (UTC)

"being" "taken" "seriously".

ok joke's dead.
Mellenabsentmammoth on September 20th, 2003 09:54 am (UTC)

You killed it. You bastard.
337common_as_stone on September 20th, 2003 09:58 am (UTC)
depends what yer deffinition of "is" is . . .
Mellenabsentmammoth on September 20th, 2003 10:49 am (UTC)
I say fuck it an use E-prime ^_^
dubpulse on September 20th, 2003 06:40 pm (UTC)
I also hesitate to simplify but really now. The neo-cons, conservatives, fanatics, moralists, puritans, christian right-wingers, dogmatics, greyfaces, whatever you want to call them.... they get so up in arms about a fucking blowjob!

and Bush started a WAR. A WAR! I mean, maybe I don't have a scriptural or ideological basis for my ethics but really now. Blowjob... War. It's not hard to figure out unless (heaven forbid!) maybe just maybe all these 'moralists' realy aren't so moral after all. Now that would be a shocker.


And I agree, the Brits definately won't let Blair get away that easily. On the other hand, who are the Labour party losing seats to? Because if it's the Tories who were big Thatcherites (the one who liked to have tea with my favourite dictator Pinochet) then I'm not so sure if it's a positive move.

It's a hard call. Maybe the centre and left parties in the UK may learn to stop bending over so far for the US's whims. Maybe even the right-wingers too. Which would be a plus.
herding virtual hedgehogsnessur on September 22nd, 2003 01:32 pm (UTC)
well, people just won't agree on whether the war was a good war to have had or not, just the same way they can't agree on whether the presidential blow job was a good one to have or not.