In an earlier post concerning the "Liberal Avenger" blog,
I praised a response from "Dana," who provided the perfect counterpoint to the original blog post.
The issue in that earlier post concerned chiding from the Liberal Avenger that conservative blogs had been silent over PM al-Maliki supposedly blowing off President Bush over diplomatic talks held in Jordan.
Dana pointed out that the talks had taken place after all, which seems to put the mysterious silence of conservative blogs in its proper perspective--they were not jumping to conclusions as did "LA" of the Liberal Avenger blog.
With not much to say in defense of the original blog post, the discussion thread quickly degenerated.
I'm guessing that the three comments preceding Dana's came from liberals or progressives--something to the left of the political spectrum. Dana's response played off of the mean-spirited comments that ran before in a somewhat clever way. But then there was this:
Jimmy's comment about "more meaningful" charges is interesting. Is it meant to minimize the charge of lying under oath? Then he asks a question that is more an attack on Dana (the "starkly ignorant comment"). Dana made a fairly decent joke, and he apparently succeeded in putting the left-leaning commentators on the defensive. Then he says that the comment is way below Dana's usual "'standards.'" If Dana's standards are so low to require using quotation marks around the word, we find that Jimmy has placed his latter attack on Dana in doubt.
Gordo is the one who produced the howler that accounts for the current post, however.
Gordo starts off saying that Dana was mixing events. It seems fair for Dana to mix events given that the thread had gone from al-Maliki blowing off Bush to Bush blowing al-Maliki and then to Condi Rice blowing Bush.
Then Gordo starts to defend Clinton (perhaps Dana's aim in the first place). Paula Jones' case against Clinton was based on no evidence, supposedly. One wonders how Gordo determined that there was no evidence, given that Jones had a witness testifying to corroborate portions of her account. As for what went on in the room in which Clinton was alleged to have propositioned Jones, what kind of evidence is there supposed to be? Sound waves imprinted on the walls? Fibers from Clinton's underwear on the carpet? That's not the way the U.S. justice system works. If a person experiences an event such as the one alleged by Jones, the system allows her to make the allegation and pit her word against Clinton's in a court of law. Most particularly, it allows Jones to buttress her case by providing evidence of Clinton's sexual dalliances, used to establish a pattern for the consideration of the judge or jury.
Gordo says that since the Lewinski affair consisted of consensual sex, therefore it was a red herring and (if I read Gordo's intent correctly) no question on the matter should have been posed to Clinton.
Gordo's logic doesn't follow. Jones did not need to show that Clinton had done to others precisely as he had done to her, though certainly such instances would also help her case. A mere pattern of infidelity by W. J. Clinton would strengthen her case. The Lewinsky dalliance did that. Gordo further supposes that the question should not have been asked, so apparently Clinton was off the hook for his answer. Well, Clinton was a lawyer at the time (he hadn't yet been disbarred), so why didn't he realize that the question shouldn't have been allowed? Is Gordo that much smarter than Clinton? Somehow, I doubt it. Clinton knew that the could have declined to answer the question. That much was discussed during the time of his impeachment. Instead, he elected to answer it with a falsehood, knowing that it affected the development of Paula Jones' case. It's classic perjury. There's no excuse.
From there, Gordo blathers on to the effect that Clinton's impeachment wasn't legitimate unless we allow prosecutors to grill all presidents about their sexual lives. That actually
is allowed, in principle, where presidential immunity is not successfully invoked.
And any president can take the avenue not chosen by Clinton: Don't answer the question.
In Clinton's case, not answering the question didn't do enough to damage Jones' case against him. So he chose to lie.
One wonders what motive other presidents would have to lie instead of simply not answering the question when questioned about their sexual history.
Gordo finishes by claiming that violating FISA ought to be an impeachable offense. Not everyone agrees with that claim, for what it's worth, but I wonder what evidence Gordo has that Bush violated FISA?
I'll have to consider Gordo's blog for Bad Blogs' Blood since he's put himself on the map like this.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
“it’s pretty difficult to imagine that he’d simply “blow off” President Bush”
Yeah, I agree. It’s more likely Bush would blow Maliki.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
I wonder if Condi blows Bush?
November 30th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Egad! What would Bob Jones think?
December 1st, 2006 at 8:25 am
Well, Blu, if she files a sexual harassment suit against him, and he lies under oath about it, y’all will finally have the impeachable offense you want.