Yo John Hudson,
on Thu, 13 Jan 2000 22:08:52 -0800, you wrote:
>>Sure, he lied under oath about it. So what?
>
>Wow! The man's a cheap liar. You should expect better from your head of state.
I agree that he shouldn't have lied.
He should have told them from the very beginning that what they were asking
about was private and none of their business.
Apart from that, most of Europe did not understand how a people could
actually try to empeach a president who - at least this is how it looks from
over here - in many ways did more for his country than most of his recent
predecessors, leading it out of a deep depression into flourishing
prosperity, just because he lied about his private affairs when asked
questions violating his private sphere, questions that had nothing to do
with his job, questions that nobody had a right to ask him.
Certainly it is wrong to lie, but Clinton's lies were somehow in
self-defense to protect his privacy and therefore, IMHO, more justified than
all the other lies just about all politicians tell us on a daily basis.
Of course, this is just my two cents' worth, from the viewpoint of a neutral
observer from Europe, and influenced by European mentality which grants even
people in high-ranking public offices a private sphere, especially if they
are doing a good job in the position they have been elected to. I believe
the questions Clinton lied answering would never have been asked in Europe.
MtFbwy,
Volkhart
--
Volkhart Baumgaertner email: kyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MausNet: @MGN
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|