Assuming he actually said that, it’s true. It’s easy to understand what he meant, but nevertheless the “de” will appear as obvioulsy uncorrect to any french speaker (like “at any french speaker”, for instance).
Beside, there’s a second error : one wouldn’t "ajouter ses sentiments (“add his feelings”). He would “ajouter ses commentaires” (“add his comments”) or "partager ses sentiments (“share his feelings”), for instance.
So, this sentence is definitely not correct, though it would be very elaborate, had it been correct. He tried to hard, IMO, to emulate the usual wording of french journalists. It doesn’t necessarily means he doesn’t speak french. Rather that he’s not fluent and doesn’t speak it better than I speak english.
However, I still think that Bush was a jerk, in this instance. I strongly doubt he knew better. And I can’t see any reason why he should react this way because a journalist tried to ask a question in french. It sounds like someone irritated because someone else is educated and tries to be polite. Well…perhaps the guy was actually trying to show off his skills. But I see no reason to assume that, and as a major political figure, Bush should have avoided to react like an irritated 6 y.o.
wring I addressed your quesiton in post #2458 at 5:25 pm
ahem… speaking of GWB alleged gaffe, this little snippet is interesting because it provides a date and place (Washington, D.C., Nov. 8, 2001). Something that Snopes seems to find dubious about the story to begin with.
Thanks for the information. I agree that Bush reacted like a 6 year old. As I said earlier, I think Gregory’s question annoyed Bush and Gregory showing off his French added to Bush’s annoyance, but that doesn’t justify his childish response.
Since we’re in a charitable mood, I’ll admit David Gregory has had his spats with others – Karen “Cruella” Hughes, for one. Hey, he knocks heads, but he gets the story straight. My kind of reporter.
I’m glad that we’ve all agreed that Bush looked the peevish dolt in France. Heck, I’m glad he didn’t haul off and call him a major league asshole, or something juvenile like that.
-Ace
What I want to know is, why in the Hell didn’t Clinton simply take the 5th Ammendment?
How could he have taken the Fifth? It is invoked in order to prevent a person from incriminating himself. Are you suggesting that, had Clinton admitted in his deposition to his sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, he would have been admitting to a crime? If not, the Fifth Amendment is not an option–you can’t just whip that out when you don’t want to answer a question.
If you’re asking why he didn’t take it when asked, “Did you lie in the Jones deposition?” I don’t have an answer for that. Maybe he thought he could get away with it.
As much as I am trying to stay out of this, I’m still not convinced it’s accurate an accurate quote. Quite frankly, a quick google search will find that the last time Cardoso and Bush met was on November 8, 2001 and in Washington, so it’s pretty easy to guess when the remark could have been made.
I want to know how Slate came up with the date and place (besides a quick google search), since the German magazine didn’t provide one. In short…what is the source? How are they coming by this info, other than guessing?
The fact that apparently Der Spiegel broke the story in its gossip column doesn’t bode well, either.
However, given the monumental hijack that has occurred, can I assume that everyone agrees it is probably a UL given the absence of background information?
Well since none of those statements are in the transcript of the Jones Deposition, You either havn’t really read it. Or you did after you had already made up your mind what you would think about it.
Try reading it again, not the television coverage, but the actual transcript. It’s far more interesting the questions that werent asked than that were.
[qupte]Well since none of those statements are in the transcript of the Jones Deposition, You either havn’t really read it. Or you did after you had already made up your mind what you would think about it.
[/quote]
Or I read it years ago and didn’t commit it to heart.
Nah. I mean, life is short. I don’t read transcripts twice unless I’m going to cross examine someone on them.
Apparently xenophon41, you don’t speaka English yourself.
Slee
Well, if you say you want a date for credibility, and then when you get a date, you say the date doesn’t add credibility(even though that date apparently lines up with your own research): I’m not sure what you’re looking for.
And actually, Der Speigel didn’t break the story, according to snopes O Estado de S. Paulo ran the story about three weeks before Der Spiegel.
Those points made, I also would like to know Slate’s source on this. I haven’t passed judgement on the quote yet.
Oh and one last thing Jodi. In response to this:
You mistake my point completely. I’m not defending the man, I’m doing what we are all supposed to be doing here in GD. defending accuracy. Use of the term perjury to describe Clinton’s testimony is simply incorrect.
If intent to deceive were the measure of perjury then both John Ashcroft and Clarence Thomas would be behind bars for giving misleading testimony before Congress during their confirmation hearings. They (unlike the President, who is in a political office) are directly connected to the administration of justice in this country.
One of them, in fact, is partly responsible for the fact that Clinton was forced to give that deposition while president in the first place.
Is Clinton a liar? sure. But so is everyone else (except Carter?) who has held that office since at least Kennedy. It’s pointless to use a willingness to lie as the measure of a politician. There are just too few honest ones out there, and apparently honestly disqualifies one from becoming president entirely.
Oh, and whether or not I have any credibility in this forum is irrelevant. My points are either backed up by the facts or they are not. Even the most trusted person here isn’t allowed to get a way with relying on their credibility instead of facts.
Well, I wasn’t really looking for a date for credibility. I’d like a source for credibility. I didn’t know about the Brasilian periodical breaking the source, though…that makes the story a bit more plausible since I could see a member of the Brasilian team leaking the story to a Brasilian news organization.
My main problem is I don’t believe half the quotes attributed to a supposedly stupid person ever since I flipped through the Bush Dyslexicon and found that it was attributing quotes to him that had previously been attributed to Quayle or Marion Barry (like the Social Security being a federal program quote and the it isn’t pollution harming our water it’s the impurities, etc.).
Not that I am saying Bush doesn’t screw up a LOT and make ridiculous and sometimes painful comments…
Cite?
No, you made further assertions.
Um… ouch? (Really, Slee, can’t you try a little harder than that? Got any criticisms that actually make sense? Or actually hurt?)
Freakin’ amateur.
Regarding Ashcroft, I believe Tejota is referring to his confirmation hearing where he promised to enforce all the laws on the books, whether or not he agreed with them (there was some concern at the time that Ashcroft wouldn’t rigorously enforce laws protecting abortion rights, for instance). Needless to say, since Ashcroft has been in office, there have been various claims raised that the Justice Department has been ignoring (or not being very vigorous, at least) violations of laws that don’t jive with Ashcroft’s personal views. For instance, Senator Charles Schumer claims that under Ashcroft’s leadership, violations of environmental laws have been only getting tepid responses from the DoJ (there used to be a cite link here, but it’s expired now).
As for Thomas, some legal experts (including Vincent Bugliosi and Alan Dershowiz) have argued that the majority decision in Bush v. Gore shows that Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, O’Connor, and Kennedy have violated their oath of office, where admitting justices must swear to perform their duties without any bias or personal predispositions. Derschowitz’s Supreme Injustice devotes several pages arguing this point, IIRC.
Question for Sua
You seem to recall the details of Clinton’s testimony better than I do. I thought that the question of whether he commited perjury amounted to whether he touched certain places (as opposed to being touched in certain places.) Given the odd definition of sex provided in the court.
So, where, exactly, did Clinton “lie” in the courtroom? Or are you just claiming that he willfully misled the court?
I recognize that you have drawn a distinction between “lie” and “perjury”. It is also plausible (to this nonlawyer) that Clinton’s evasions may have amounted to contempt of court. I would guess that they did, but my opinion is wholly ungrounded on this point.
Thanks in advance.
This question is thoroughly analyzed in Judge Richard Posner’s book Affair of State. Here’s a review: http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/programs/history/faculty/TROYWEB/JudgePosnerFindsClintonandtheRestofUsGuilty.htm