Quote:
Originally posted by Botnst
Sorry about the length. I guess I went into more detail than you thought necessary.
If it wasn't intentional or said knowing it was wrong, it wasn't a lie by the person who said. It If somebody else gave him that to say, then that somebody else may be the liar, but only if she knew it was a lie. And so forth up the food chain.
See where I'm going?
If every false or inaccurate statement is defined as a lie, then the sciences are jam-packed with incorrigible liars; I probably lie 30% of the time my mouth opens; all children are liars. Where does it end?
What do you propose we do with these ne'er do wells?
B
|
I was just jerking your chain on the length of your response.
I think what Wilkinson meant was that it is Constitutionally inappropriate for the National Security Advisor to be compelled to discuss national security matters, under oath, with TV cameras rolling. I don't know enough about the legal issues to know what Rice's position should be, and neither does most of the CNN audience that Wilkinson was addressing. Her position is probably defensible, but not for the reason Wilkinson said. He needed a sound bite, so he said she was prohibited. I think MikeMover would say, big whoop, a politician got sloppy with the truth, so what else is new? I suppose it is a fact of political life. I just wish the media would call them on it so they wouldn't be so confident that their fibs will go unchallenged. Of course, if the media did that, they would lose access, which means they lose $$$.
As you mentioned in response to Z, there is no Fifth Amendment issue, it's more of a separation of powers issue.