Just for clarity:
Breaking an oath does not make one a hypocrite:
[quote]
Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person, where the stated basis
for the criticism is the breach of a rule which also applies to the critic
and of which the critic is in breach to a similar or greater extent. A
person engaged in hypocrisy is called a hypocrite. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrite
[/quote]
Hyde never condemned Clinton for having affairs. In fact, he was one of the
most vocal oppositions to mentioning infidelity as part of any articles (and
why there was none).
Hyde argued for impeachment on the grounds of lying under oath. So if could
be shown that Hyde also had lied under oath, _then_ he would have been a
hypocrite. He may well have been a hypocrite on other unknown issues, but in
the context of this discussion, it simply does not apply.
On 11/30/07 10:16 AM, "Buck Calabro" <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 30, 2007 9:05 AM, rick baird wrote:
I'm generally with Wayne on this, for the same reason I'm generally
with Rick on this. Both men swore an oath (marriage is an oath) and
both men broke it. Arguing the technicalities of either situation
ignores the big, general picture that both men swore to do one thing
and in actuality did another. Both hypocrites.
He didn't lie under oath, so it sounds to me like he wasn't being
hypocritical at all.
On 11/30/07, Wayne McAlpine wrote:
He led the charge for Clinton's impeachment, full of righteous
indignation, and then it came out that he had had an affair himself.
Rich Rijnders wrote:
How was he a hypocrite?
--buck
