Gautam Mukunda wrote:
...
> Monica Lewinsky. The most harsh interpretation fo the
> facts available is that the Administration honestly
> made a claim that has now been called into question.
> Not proven false, just called into question. The most
> plausible interpretation of the facts available is
> that the Administration made a claim that is still
> supported by the preponderance of the evidence. There
> is _no_ plausible interpretation of the facts which
> holds that the Adminstration lied or sought to lie.
Is a general pattern of making misleading statements on
similar subjects admissable evidence? If you are going by a
strict legal interpretation, I would tend to agree that Mr. Bush
has not committed perjury.
On the other hand, his administration has been succeeding
in misleading most of the American public for years, and finally
got called on it. That does seem fair.
---David
Weepons of Mass Deestruckshen? We don't need no steenk'n
Weepons of Mass Deestruckshen!
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
