?

Log in

No account? Create an account
One last thing about word games and the Bush administration - John [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
John

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

One last thing about word games and the Bush administration [Jun. 27th, 2004|10:23 am]
John
That is, one last thing for the moment...


Much was made of the fact that Clinton, at one point, said something akin to "it depends on the meaning of 'is'".

See, he was asked if the relationship with Monica Lewinsky *is* sexual... and he felt he could honestly answer "no", because it *was*, but wasn't at the time the question was being asked. "Is" does not mean "is now, ever was, or might possibly be in the future".

I saw one person who scorned that because it was so impossible to prove perjurious. He could go right out of the courtroom and engage in sexual relations with her, saying that, at the time the question was asked, he didn't know that he *could* engage in sexual relations with her... and, similarly, he could have decided that, although he'd engaged in sexual relations with her right before giving testimony, it was the last time, so the relationship stopped being sexual. Of course, *neither* of those cases were true, so far as anyone has accused. The scorn was simply because Clinton was obviously being such a weasel... I suppose it's Clinton's fault that the question is so poorly thought out, and forces the consideration of the present tense.

On http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5305782/, once again, we see the kind of wordgames that I've complained about in my last journal entry (or one of the last few entries)... White House counsel Alberto Gonzales points out that, in his opinion, everything ordered was lawful and not torture... but the memos dance around with what *is* lawful and what *is* torture. So, Bush could have ordered pain that's not quite as bad as, say, organ failure or impending death, and be standing there claiming he never ordered torture, nor anything illegal.

I wonder if the same conservatives who showed scorn over Clinton's wordplay about sex are going to be as scornful over Bush's wordplay over torture.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: starcat_jewel
2004-06-28 04:08 am (UTC)
Of course not. After all, torture is just The Way Things Are. Sex is NASTY!!!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: siliconshaman
2004-06-28 07:11 am (UTC)
Hmm, that ties in nicely with the article I posted a link to, doesn't it!

I think all this demonstrates that politians of any stripe are slippier than greased eels, and as bent as a nine dollor note!

Which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that's been paying attention.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: starcat_jewel
2004-06-28 09:12 am (UTC)
Yes, and now that I think about it, we've already seen what the Official Line is going to be. The people who were having shitfits about Clinton's sex life are now going to be able to continue to feel smug and self-righteous... by calling the people who are upset about the torture "hypocrites" because they weren't upset about Clinton's sex life!

The Queens of Denial, indeed...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)