![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnpalmerThat 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.
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.
