You are viewing extempore

Jan. 2nd, 2008 @ 10:33 am torture 'R' us
When you hear stuff like this...
The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.
...I find the best way to fully enjoy it is to remember once again that clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob.

Happy new year everyone! Isn't it thrilling to be ushering in this new era of peace, prosperity and accountability... starting... now. I mean now. Okay, now.
About this Entry
From:nahmiase
Date:January 2nd, 2008 07:22 pm (UTC)

Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
Though I find it incredibly convenient that the CIA destroyed those tapes, I can't say I'm surprised. With regard to that point of yours, I can't argue.

But it continues to amaze me how people insist on stating that Clinton was impeached for lying about sex. It doesn't take a brilliant legal mind to know that the subject of his lie had zero to do with his impeachment. Rather, it was the simple fact that he lied under oath, in a legal proceeding. A felony...by most legal standards. It could have been a lie about what he ate for dinner, or something infinitely more trivial, and the fact would remain that the President (and member of a state legal Bar) committed perjury. The fact that it was a sex act only made it sexier, for lack of a better term, to the masses and his enemies. If people are going to complain about his impeachment in relation to the lack of impeachment of current incumbent politicians (perhaps rightfully so), let's at least get the reasons correct.

[User Picture Icon]
From:dmorr
Date:January 2nd, 2008 07:35 pm (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
You're definitely right. There's no moral difference between lying about getting a blowjob under oath and obstructing justice by concealing torture of prisoners.

Both illegal, both impeding the true carriage of justice. I can't imagine how someone might think they were different, or for God's sake claim that the fact that the blowjob lie enjoyed much more severe consequences than illegally hiding torture means something.

I mean, really.
From:samholden
Date:January 2nd, 2008 07:38 pm (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
He committed perjury by lying about a blow job. Hence he was impeached for lying about a blow job. It's how we refer to things, when someone is convicted of murdering a family we don't say "he was convicted for 3 murders", we say "he was convicted for killing his family on Thanksgiving" - well the general public does the legal profession probably wouldn't...
From:nahmiase
Date:January 2nd, 2008 07:46 pm (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
Sounds as if you're denying the obvious insinuation in the original post. I can't for the life of me separate that insinuation from the reason he posted it in the first place.

Incidentally, with Democratic control of seemingly everything outside of the White House walls, if anyone is complaining about a lack of impeachment of this Repubulican Prez or any of his cronies, the blame most certainly lies with those who you most probably favor.
[User Picture Icon]
From:extempore
Date:January 2nd, 2008 08:12 pm (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
Incidentally, with Democratic control of seemingly everything outside of the White House walls, if anyone is complaining about a lack of impeachment of this Repubulican Prez or any of his cronies, the blame most certainly lies with those who you most probably favor.

If there's anything more stultifying than republican apologists, it's the people who can't imagine seeing the world except through this falsest of false dichotomies. (Congrats, you've nailed both.)
[User Picture Icon]
From:extempore
Date:January 2nd, 2008 08:07 pm (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
I don't know who you think you're kidding.
From:nahmiase
Date:January 2nd, 2008 08:22 pm (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
Oh I don't know Paul. Guess I was feeling a bit nostalgic at having seen you twice on my television this week out where I live, (do you get royalties?) and just had to offer my opinion knowing full well that the vast majority of your readers would disagree with every ounce of their soul.

But I doubt a Republican apologist would ever acknowledge you had a point on the CIA antics to begin with, so I'm not sure I fit your definition of such evil incarnate. Nonetheless, I'll stand by my simple original point, that the impeachment was never legally 'about a blow job'. And if it isn't the fault of the powers that be that Bush or Cheney were never impeached, then maybe someone can explain to me the new Super Executive Veto that Bush must hold in his desk drawer to prevent them from exercising their Constitutionally inherent powers.
From:nortonesque
Date:January 2nd, 2008 08:29 pm (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
that the impeachment was never legally 'about a blow job'

No, it was for lying about a blow job, which is exactly what Paul said in his original post.
From:nahmiase
Date:January 2nd, 2008 08:37 pm (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
And again, if you think paul's point was that shallow, you've missed it entirely. It's obvious he was comparing what he believed to be the rather trivial nature of the subject of Clinton's lie to the clearly more sinister nature of these CIA actions, and lamenting the fact that one resulted in impeachment, and the other most likely will not. I doubt that needs explaining to you at all. But that doesn't detract from my response in any way: it doesn't matter what the lie was about. You and i can agree 100% that someone should suffer the same inquiry or worse for acts in this administration. So what? Just call a spade a spade. He was impeached for breaking the law. Why is it so hard to admit? Does it hurt that much to acknowledge it?
From:samholden
Date:January 2nd, 2008 08:59 pm (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
What is your original point?

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job, that much is pretty obvious. Yes that lying part is against the law, due to him being under oath at the time.

Do you seriously have no concept that some people might think that some things which are illegal shouldn't be in the first place, and hence when people do those things they don't consider it a big deal. Such things might include smoking a joint, lying about an extra-marital affair on public record, kicking puppies, gambling on the internet, etc - which exact things of course depend on the individual.

Works the other way to, some things aren't illegal which some people think should be, and hence they consider those things a bigger deal than might be expected by reading the laws. Such as, torturing civilians (apparently anyway), shipping people off to be tortured in other countries, wearing sunglasses at night time, etc - again everyone has a different set.

Hence it's not surprising that some people are amazed by what appears to be a double standard, of punishing someone for a minor harms no one offense and not punishing someone for a major harms everyone offense.

Impeaching Clinton was fine by me, he broke the law, and Congress showed exactly what things the care about. Not impeaching Bush & Co is not so fine by me, also broke the law (in my opinion obviously), and Congress showed exactly what they don't care about.

Not that Clinton was anything to write home about in the first place, there's another thing you can't seem to grasp - not everyone is in one of the "pro-everything-republicans-say/anti-everything-democrats-say" or the "anti-everything-republicans-say/pro-everything-democrats-say" sets.
From:nortonesque
Date:January 3rd, 2008 03:14 am (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
He was impeached for breaking the law.

Bonus points if you can name what he did to break the law.

Bush hasn't lied about a blow job under oath, so I guess he's working out pretty well for you.
From:nahmiase
Date:January 3rd, 2008 07:30 am (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
I didn't vote for Bush, so if you are blindly assuming I support his Presidency you mistake me for one of the people described by 'samholden' above.

As for crimes committed by Clinton, I'll argue he committed perjury by lying about material issues in a deposition and in front of a grand jury, he intimidated witnesses in those investigations, and obstructed justice as well.

But you'll argue that they weren't material lies, and since he was never convicted of anything then they weren't crimes in the end. Hooray for gridlock.
From:rosenblumr
Date:January 3rd, 2008 04:31 am (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
I can safely say that Paul has received at least every single payment entitled to him under the WPT release.

Oh and in answer to you subject line, that definitely is not a BJ.
From:nahmiase
Date:January 3rd, 2008 07:32 am (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
I figured as much. It's too bad though, because as much as poker is shown over here in the Middle East (several shows a day, every day), paul and other "WPT personalities..." could have bought several hundred barrels of the local oil.
[User Picture Icon]
From:filthy_habit
Date:January 2nd, 2008 08:41 pm (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
It could have been a lie about what he ate for dinner, or something infinitely more trivial, and the fact would remain that the President (and member of a state legal Bar) committed perjury.

Lying under oath, yes. Perjury, no. Perjury is different in that the lies must have material relevance to the case in question such that it would affect the outcome of the case. Clinton getting a blow job from Lewinsky and lying about it had no material relevance to the Jones case. Starr was clearly fishing in waters he had no business being in, and he knew it. He was just throwing a red herring out there hoping to trip Clinton up and score a point. He succeeded at that.

Impeached? Yes. Convicted? No.
From:zetack
Date:January 3rd, 2008 08:29 pm (UTC)

Re: Not a BJ

(Permanent Link)
"It could have been a lie about what he ate for dinner, or something infinitely more trivial, and the fact would remain that the President (and member of a state legal Bar) committed perjury.

Lying under oath, yes. Perjury, no. Perjury is different in that the lies must have material relevance to the case in question such that it would affect the outcome of the case. Clinton getting a blow job from Lewinsky and lying about it had no material relevance to the Jones case. Starr was clearly fishing in waters he had no business being in, and he knew it. He was just throwing a red herring out there hoping to trip Clinton up and score a point. He succeeded at that.

Impeached? Yes. Convicted? No."


You've made the point, but it bears repeating, the Clinton was impeached but not convicted. Impeachment is akin to an indictment. Ultimately, Clinton was aquited on both the accounts he was impeached on. Both the impeachment and the acquital broke largely on political lines, so take what you will from either of those events.

But I think that its self evident that you can be indicted for things of varying severity or that we would attach differing moral condemnation on. Think possession with intent to sell and deliver 5 rocks of crack cocaine, and attempted rape of a seventeen year old mentally incompetent girl, just for an example.

So, why is it therefore surprising (to a prior poster, not the one I'm replying to) that people might find a moral/seriousness difference between lying to a grand jury about extra-marital sexual acts in front of a Ken Starr assembled grand jury, and destruction of evidence of torture?

I think that point is valid, whether or not one believes that Bush can be directly tied to the destruction of evidence or whether that destruction of evidence is in itself a crime.
From:toddcommish
Date:January 2nd, 2008 10:42 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Odd that this managed to become a debate about whether lying under oath about blowjobs is better or worse than destroying evidence. Uh, both are bad... (incidentally, that doesn't exact clear Clinton since shredding Vince Foster's stuff is, oh, destroying evidence too...)

Anyway, is Bush an evil sadistic mastermind who tortures innocent Al-Qaeda detainees and destroys the evidence before anyone can find out, or is he a bumbling nimrod who can't pronounce "nu-cle-ar" and chew gum without practice? I, for one, would be willing to bet that Bush had NFI about the tapes and had nothing to do with their destruction.

Is Bush's bumbling ignorance and adminstrative incompetence worse than Clinton's intentional lying and subterfuge?
From:samholden
Date:January 3rd, 2008 01:32 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Is Bush's bumbling ignorance and adminstrative incompetence worse than Clinton's intentional lying and subterfuge?

I think so, only one of them has the US spending billions of dollars and thousands of American lives invading Iraq.
[User Picture Icon]
From:moejo
Date:January 2nd, 2008 11:53 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"Bush's approval rating has dropped so low
the only thing he's above now is the law."
-Jay Leno
From:rosenblumr
Date:January 3rd, 2008 04:28 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Are you implying Bush should be impeached for getting a blow job from Al Qaeda or lying about getting a blow job from Al Qaeda?

And I used to think Monica was a step down from former presidential conquests.


From:romdom
Date:January 3rd, 2008 08:48 am (UTC)

presidential blowjobs

(Permanent Link)
Im of the opinion that the whole "impeached for a blowjob" thing was sort of a ploy to cause people to overlook the many actual shady dealings in his presidency. When people talk about clinton its always the same argument "he got brain in the oval office" vs "huge economic upswing" and no one talks about him selling technology to the chinese in exchange for campaign$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$s
[User Picture Icon]
From:d_c_m
Date:January 3rd, 2008 04:19 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
...I find the best way to fully enjoy it is to remember once again that clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob.
Oh testify brother, testify.
From:shezzavague
Date:January 3rd, 2008 09:11 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
It's, erm, amusing, that despite the false dichotomy exposed by paulp, the vast majority of posts on this thread accede to one of two dictums: 'the blue team did it, it must be wrong' or 'the red team did it, it must be write'.

It seems to me as a genuine non-partisan - what with being British and all - that the original comments suggested more that the law was an ass than that any individual was.

Still, reassuring to know that you people are going to elect yet another leader who will have more influence on my life than our own on the basis of cognitive bias or, to put it less kindly, blind prejudice.
From:inet_stranger
Date:March 7th, 2008 05:24 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
As on topic as I could readily make it, delete at will:

Not expecting peace any time soon then:


http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&akhp