A Bill Clinton lie begins with a denial. When the evidence refutes the denial he changes gears and restates the lie in a way that acknowledges all the known facts. When the rest of the lie is determined, he blames his right wing critics.
A George Bush lie begins with some faulty intelligence passed to him. When he explains that it wasn't intentional and hardly the strongest part of his case anyway, he is accused of covering up. When the British government continues to stick by the original intelligence, the press makes little mention of it.
The whole thing is painted in terms of Clinton's personal behavior versus Bush's public behavior, but nothing is mentioned about Clinton bombing the Iraqis when he was trying to stop the impeachment process. Has there ever been a more obvious time when a President was willing to kill people for his personal political survival? Bush was actually trying to defeat the enemy. Clinton was trying to save only himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment