The King of Contradiction, the Darling of Doublespeak
Clinton
Clinton is at it again. In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, read what he said, with the first breath:
"The charges that the House sent to the Senate were false," Clinton claimed for the first time since signing off on his 2001 plea bargain with Ray. "So I did a bad thing. I made a bad personal mistake. I paid a big price for it. But I was acquitted because the charges were false."
And then with another breath:
"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely," Clinton said in a statement read by his then-press secretary, Jake Siewert. "But I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false."
As to the charges of purgery (lying under oath):
"And that the charges that the House sent to the Senate were false. So I did a bad thing. I made a bad personal mistake. I paid a big price for it. But I was acquitted because the charges were false."
The law of non-contradiction applies here; two complete opposite statements cannot both be true. He was indicted on charges of purgery and obstruction of justice. He said his responses to the questions were false, but the purgery charges were false.
And I bet the media will let it go. Scoundrels! Phooey on them!
posted by Underground Logician @ 12:13 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I agree with you, though I should point out that if you read the actual charges filed against him sent to the Senate, were actually false. Basically, he did not get charged for what he really did wrong, but he admits that he did do something wrong. Being an English teacher and having a vast knowledge of semantics, he didn't obstruct justice or purger himself. Part of law is knowing how to ask the right qtestions and how to answer them correctly. As far as words go, he is an artist, and was able to stay just this side of the law.
I understand what you are saying. My question is: how can Clinton admit that some of the answers re: Monica were false, and yet not perjure himself? Did he believe at the time of the deposition that his answers were true, and then in retrospect discover they were false? Was it an unintentional oversight? Or, was it his definition of "sex?"
I know he's a lawyer, and he knows how to maneuver around in language. You call it "artful," the common master calls it the "fallacy of equivocation," in which Clinton isn't artful, but pulling a fast one. If he willfully equivocated in order to maneuver around the questions, then he willfully mislead the Grand Jury, which is perjury. Ergo, the charges were not false, but right on the money. The Senate didn't have the fortitude to convict.
Tell me where I'm not thinking clearly, or do I have my facts wrong?
Do you have a website that has the transcripts, so we can know what the questions actually were?
I don't have a site, but I'm sure I can find one. I'll look it up and get back to you. I think you're probqably right and I need to go back and revisit it as well. The more I think about what he said on the news, the more i sounds like crap.
Post a Comment
<< Home