I see litost has already posted what I was going to say. Gregory’s childish question does not justify Bush’s childish response.
Regarding Gregory’s error, there is a long line of jokes in which the know-it-all turns out to be wrong, e.g.
I’m going to hijack my own thread – twice! 
Hijack #1:
I believe Chance’s point is that Ken Starr was neither Bill Clinton, the little woman, nor the other little woman. And therefore had no moral reason to ask the question to begin with.
Hijack #2:
Does anyone know how good G.W. Bush’s Spanish is? I’ve heard some unreliable anecdotes that his touted Spanish fluency is merely passable, and isn’t much better than what a tourist with several weeks in a Spanish 101 class can do. Clarification from Spanish-speaking Dopers would be welcome.
You were clear enough. You care about the lie, even though if it weren’t for the inappropriate investigation of his sex life, there would have been no need to lie. You called it perjury, which, technically it was not.
Also, you consistently defend Bush, who lies about substative issues pretty regularly, so clearly your concern about lies is directed by something other than fairness.
for instance, this is a lie about policy. Now Bush isn’t speaking under oath, so he’s not in a position to perjure himself. But so what? If the measure of a man is honesty, then one who tells the truth only when there are legal reprecussions is merely a liar and a coward.
Personally, I think it’s far more important to have a president who tells the truth about his goals and policies, rather than about who he has sex with. Whether or not he is under oath or not is irrelevant. An honest man is honest all of the time. Clinton failed that test when he faced his political opposition in a courtroom, but Bush fails that test regularly.
Ah, I see your misunderstanding. You still think that the Starr Witch Hunt was a legal proceeding rather than a political one. Those of us who don’t care, don’t care because we recognise that that Clinton had no moral obligation to cooperate with a political attack, even if it was handled in a quasi-legal fashion.
**Sua—**Yes, it’s legally relevant that Clinton lied, but the fact remains that what’s truly damning here is Starr’s reprehensible abuse of his office. I really don’t see how this case reflects on what the rest of what Clinton did during his presidency, and it’s a pathetic diversionary tactic on the part of conservatives (or Libertarians, or other rightist types.) Viewing the Starr trials by themselves, it doesn’t look so good. However, bearing in mind what Starr’s goal was—character assassination through following the letter but not the spirit of the law—I find it difficult to fault the man. As a lawyer, I imagine I’d see things differently, but from the viewpoint of plain old ethics, the Starr scandals are irrelevant. As you and rjung have pointed out, Starr behaved unethically, and I think we agree with that. It does have tragic consequences for the sake of the law, since we can’t ignore this, even though Starr’s doings were morally bankrupt.
**december—**Bush’s visit was being protested at every stop. What’s wrong with asking him about it? That’s a very fair question. And Gregory’s a know-it-all? Why? Because he can speak French? Or because he’s smarter than Bush II?
**rjung—**A friend of mine is from northern Spain and tells me that he’s heard Bush speaking Spanish on TV. Aside from the fact that my friend finds the Latin American version of Spanish grating, he says that Bush’s Spanish is pretty good, though you can clearly hear a North American accent in it. Of course, Bush had better not use his Spanish. After all, if you use more than one language, you must be some kind of know-it-all…
Oh, I see. So, if someone were to, say, launch a nuisance lawsuit against me on grounds that I know to be false, I’m not morally obligated to tell the truth at my depositions? Or if it actually gets to the trial stage, even after I am sworn in, I’m under no obligation to answer questions honestly? Am I getting that right? Because I just want to be clear on that.
Wow. What a great moral system. I can see why so many members of the left are fond of it. I don’t know how I could have dismissed it as moral relativism. Thank you for opening my eyes!
Sua, bullshit, again, on two counts. First, your posts strike me to be as much ‘Clintonista,’ as say, George Stephenopolous – do you have any proof that you ever liked Clinton? Secondly, I should think any ‘Clintonista’ would know how the entire witch hunt that led to The Big Lewinsky was B.S. from back in its nascent days, and would avoid posting your misgided tripe. Here are the more relevant points:
-
The Paula Jones case was trumped up and funded by affiliates of the American Spectator, and indirectly by the RW headcase, Richard Mellon Scaife. Remember, her character was impugned because a girlfriend of Clinton’s was called “Paula” in the article.
-
David Brock reports first hand that the ‘elves’ behind Paula Jones wanted to entrap B.C. in a perjury rap using a sex case they didn’t believe in, in an traitorous effort to bring down a sitting president, or at least distract him from his agenda.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/05/29_David_Brock.html
-
The independent counsel panel was run by who? David Sentelle. And he was appointed by? William Rhenquist. Sentelle was a RW’er who was instructed to pull Robert Fisk, as he was doing an even-handed, non hatchet job. Sentelle appointed Starr, who would leak and publish that hard-core porn report. All thanks to the Federalist Society.
-
The Rhenquist court allowed a sitting president to not be immune to the joke of a civil sex case from Paula Jones – even though judges and soldiers are immune from these cases. Vincent Bugliosi, among others excoriates the court’s monumentally stupid decision in “No Island of Sanity.” Rhenquists written opinion, IIRC, included “Should not cause undue distraction.”
-
Self-protective perjury, as in “I didn’t do it” is almost never prosecuted – think closer to 99% of the time.
-
When Rhenquist and the Federalist society failed to impeach B.C., they went and (S)elected Bush boy, in perhaps THE worst supreme court decision, ever. “Limited to the present circumstances,” my ass!
In other words, the whole meandering investigation was a witch hunt cooked up by the Federalist Society and their affiliates, which may explain why his approval rating was above 60% the whole time. Clinton’s only mistake was answering a damn thing.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/30/poll/
[/Hijack]
On the subject at hand, I’ll bet that reporters ask questions in foreign tongues all the time. As for the coverage covering up Bush’s lapses, they’ve been going to bat for him since day one. If you read the Bushisms column in Slate, you’ll find howlers one after the other – none reported. There was even a couple of navel-gazing columns months back about how the Press no longer sees a need to report each and every one of these…
Oh and, FWIW, the Prez ain’t fluent in anything.
**Sua—**Ugh. I’m writing in fits and starts while at work, so my post is a little dodgy, concerning its flow. Basically, to reïterate, Clinton behaved ethically, if not outside the law. Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread, himself, while Judas earned those thirty pieces of silver. When I said “the Starr scandals are irrelevant,” I mean that they’re irrelevant when pondering Clinton’s ethics.
**pldennison—**When I used the 90% figure, what’s implied is that most of the United States’ citizens found Clinton’s behavior to be Clinton’s own business, as well as the overwhelming majority of citizens of the rest of the world’s democracies. It’s not a scientifically-derived figure, of course; it’s just my way of saying that most citizens of civilized democracies saw Starr’s crap for what it was. But the Iraqi media sure made hay over this, you can bet…
Not sure if you’re trying to be funny or just plain stupid. I think you are the later. Der Spiegel is one of the most respected weekly magazines in Germany. The only naked women (or men) you might see in or on this magazin in the last 30 years might have been related to reports of breast cancer or such.
Interesting to note would be whether this ‘report’ only appeared on their website or in actual print. The site has clearly some more articles that have a ‘Boulevard Presse’ flavor. You will not find this type of reporting under their Politik section.
I would put this under the type of reporting you frequently see in the WSJ editorial section. Aggressive, representative of the opinions of a large portion of the readership, but not always quite sane.
And believe me, this impression of GWB is representative of large sections of Germany and Europe, one the left as well as on the right side of the political spectrum.
Again, not trying to defend the magazin if they indeed made the quote up but since it is not under their regular reporting section I would not stop the world for it.
**pldennison—**You’re not morally obliged to testify. You’re legally obliged. There’s a difference.
But Tejota just told me I wasn’t obliged, because nuisance lawsuits are political and not legal. So which one is it? Do I have to tell the truth in my deposition or not?
Ace, if David Brock admits that he was lying then, why should we believe he’s telling the truth now? Maybe he’s part of the Super-Secret Fascist Republican Cabal Plot to destroy the Democratic Party and create Amerikkka! If David Brock told me that my eyes were hazel, I’d look in the mirror just to make sure.
Sounds like the time Reagan went to Central America, came back and said,
“You’d be surprised. They’re all individual countries.”
D’uh!
You got it, Chance. Gregory’s question indicated that he thinks he’s smarter than Bush. Maybe he is smarter, but Bush is President.
Gregory didn’t just ask Bush about the protests. His question included (presumably) his own view that:
– Europe has strong sentiments against the US, and
– Europe has strong sentiments against Bush, personally, and
– these sentiments are justified, and
– they were caused by Bush imposing America’s will on the rest of the world.
For Gregory to effectively feed Bush his desired answer to the question on protests was a way of showing that he considered himself to be smarter than Bush. In that context, speaking French looks like additional childish one-upmanship.
However, it was inappropriate for Bush to respond in kind. A President ought to maintain his dignity in the face of what amounts to a pretty petty provocation.
Pldennison, geez, that’s inventive. Um, because unrefuted first-hand accounts have more weight than poorly sourced RW hate screeds?
And hey, since he’s full of lies – how’s’about you and the rest of the RW’ers stop reading off the talking points and sue David for one of his ‘lies’? Can’t, can you?
That’s because they’re all true – the indirect character smears instead of saying “X never happened,” is just more proof of his truth… and RW desperation.
I also used the word ‘morally’ regarding his obligation. But, then, you know that because you have the text right in front of you.
Care to try again?
Ace - Shhh. Didn’t your mommy tell you to be quiet when grownups are trying to talk?
Chance, I would disagree, on a few grounds. First, it’s important to remember that Clinton’s first perjury occurred in the Jones lawsuit, not in Starr’s investigation. While certainly that case was bogus, the process was not. There was a judge presiding over the case that, to my knowledge, no one has ever accused of partisanship - indeed, she dismissed Jones’ case on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which is very rare in federal litigation.
The question on which Clinton lied had been vetted by that judge, and was thus appropriately asked.
Second, I would submit that the ethical response to Clinton to the situation should have been “I refuse to answer that question, as it is [insert any of several grounds here], and I will accept the consequences of my refusal.”
To give an analogy, I believe that Muhammad Ali, who refused to join the Army and instead went to jail because he believed fighting in Vietnam was immoral, acted ethically. Those who felt the same way as Ali, but who, instead of accepting the consequences of their beliefs, paid off a doctor to write them up as 4F, acted unethically.
In my system of ethics, it is not only what you believe but how you act on those beliefs that is important. I fully acknowledge that my ethics aren’t binding on you or anyone else, but it is what fuels my perception of the situation.
Sua
Actually, a number of Brock’s statements have been refuted by people who were there. E.g., see
Lord almighty, december, if you reach any farther, your arms will pop out of their sockets. David Gregory’s question was based on certain observations—like all those protests and all those editorials that were highly critical of the United States’ policies. Even if those were the product of a very vocal minority (as you seem to believe,) it would still be a relevant question to ask, if only to dispel the fraud. All my European friends, I might add, are fed up with Bush. All their European friends are, too. I don’t think that assuming Europe’s exasperation with Bush is much of a stretch.
Here’s what the New York Times had to say about Mr. Gregory’s scrape with Bush II:
That doesn’t seem like a very leading question to me, and I think it’s safe to say that any competant person with some notion of what his plans are could easily wriggle out of it. That would be an uncomfortable question for any leader, to be sure, but if the press is supposed to softball all inquiries to our leaders, then what’s the point of the press in the first place?
And again: it’s hardly grandstanding to ask a question in French to the president of France. That people are attacking Mr. Gregory for asking the question in French in the first place is one of the most baffling things I’ve ever run across. I’d really like to hear some sort of justification of attacking him for this.
See what December?. Other than the rather suggestive title, there’s nothing in that article (at least, in the parts visible to the public), that contradict Brock. Is this another one of your attempts at bluffing via cite? If there is actualy content in your cite, Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote a bit for us?
Bill Clinton could have settled with Paula Jones before trial for an apology and a fraction of the $750,000 she was asking. Instead, he conspired with Monica Lewinsky to tell coordinated lies, which let to all the rest.
He wasn’t feeding his starving family. I do not know what his motive was, but he could easily have avoided that whole business. It’s appalling that he preferred to conspire to commit perjury, rather than lose a minor lawsuit.