There are so many things wrong with this David Brooks' column I barely know where to begin. Wait, I know. Here:
Republicans who’d worked themselves up into a spittle-spewing rage because Bill Clinton lied under oath were appalled that anybody would bother with poor Libby over lying under oath. Democrats who were outraged that Bill Clinton was hounded for something as trivial as perjury were furious that Scooter Libby might not be ruined for a crime as heinous as perjury. It was an orgy of shamelessness. The God of Self-Respect took sabbatical.
Why is this so damn hard for people like Brooks to understand?
Clinton lied about a blowjob. Not only did people not care, they actually kind of understood where he was coming from. Hence the increase in popularity for the president over the course of the investigation.
Scooter Libby lied about a matter directly related to national security.
To buy Brooks' argument, you would have to believe that all lies, no matter the subject, were equal. That being true, you would then logically have to argue that, given such an equality, all lies must be treated equally under the law. This would suggest such things as mandatory sentences for those convicted of lying.
That's a conservative position, not a liberal one. Brooks' surely knows that. Doesn't he?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
