* * * This message was from Amy Guskin to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

{at}MSGID: 
{at}REPLY:
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:38:38 -0400, Carl wrote
(in article ):
> 
> 
> Amy Guskin wrote:
>> 
>> Why does it have to be under oath?  There's been plenty of lying to the 
>> public already.
> 
> So did Clinton and so does every other politician.  You have not heard 
> me claim to be shocked by this or condemn one side or another as being 
> unique in this.
> 
> Under oath is a very different thing.  It's a matter of honor.  If you 
> violate your word, your oath and your honor in this way ... particularly 
> for something as petty and self-serving ... your word is meaningless and 
> your honor non-existent. <<

My feeling on this is that he never should have been put in that position, 
and while he still shouldn't have lied, it's nothing but a drop in the ocean 
compared to Bush's lies, despite the under oath/not under oath distinction.

>>>>>>>>> And incidentally, insider speculation about why 
>>>> Laura moved out is because of a purported affair between George and 
>>>> Condoleeza Rice...
>>> If something comes out to substantiate that, then by all means
>>> sink your teeth into him the same way the right did to Clinton.
>>> Actually, I have no doubt the left would be even more vicious. <<
>> 
>> More vicious??  On what basis?  Certainly not from the past fourteen years 
>> of 
>> outrageous political backbiting and smearing and swiftboating, which has 
>> overwhelmingly come from the right. <<

No answer to this?  I'd really like to know, if you're willing to answer, on 
what basis you have "no doubt the left would be even more vicious."  If 
you're that certain, you must have some reason for saying it.

>>>>>>> However... it would be proper to wait until
you have more than a rumor. 

>>>>> <<
>> 
>> That's funny in so many ways.  I reference once again Bill Clinton and the 
>> ad 
>> nauseum reportage of rumors of him having had Vince Foster murdered.
> 
> And there were rumors that Bush had bin Laden on ice for months and was 
> going to bring him out right before the 2004 election... or that Bush 
> ordered the 9-11 attacks.. or that bin Laden was in league with Bush to 
> get him re-elected. <<

Were any of these 'rumors' you mention reported/flogged regularly in the 
mainstream media, as many of the rumors dogging Clinton were?  There's your 
big difference.

>>> What you're saying is that you have the right to condemn based on rumor 
> after years of (rightfully) criticizing others that have done so? <<

Huh?  How do you get _that_ from what I said?  We've been talking about how 
the mainstream media has treated different politicians.  And there's a dearth 
of coverage of the many, many Bush missteps, when Clinton couldn't use the 
wrong salad fork without being written up somewhere.

Amy
                                                                           
                   
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32