Should be "least objectionable" or "the greater evil" or "caused the greatest harm." But really, there's no comparison to lying about an affair and causing the deaths of thousands for political expediency.
do you mean sexual indiscretions of clinton or the lying about it? because as far as lying goes, the lying only happens because we live in a prudish society that pretends like sex should be hidden even though its everywhere. when we evolve into a more progressive society and stop worrying about this stuff, we'll be better off for it. and frankly im sick of democrats trying to milk republican hypocrisy on it. sure it's hypocrisy, but i'd like to be above that and stay true to our value of mind our own bedroom business.
i mean both. i've been through this umpteen-million times here. but when you're sued for sexual harassment by an underling, you no longer have the legal right to be discrete about your sexual affairs with other people who have worked for you. then we call it perjury.
I suppose I see it this way: Lewinsky: President who has sworn to uphold the laws and Constitution of the country attempts to undermine the integrity of the justice system by committing perjury. That's pretty bad in principal, though the actual scope and impact was not very large. Iraq: President legally manipulates country into engaging in a boneheaded war. I'd say his motivations were primarily imperial (securing a friendly government in the middle east), with self-aggrandizement a secondary consideration, and altruism tertiary. A slight fault in principal since he is attempting to protect the national interest at the expense of others internationally (which I consider immoral, but is the expectation we have of national leaders), but the scope and impact were huge. What you didn't include were the various elements of his war on terror that champion the interests of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative, judiciary, and the American people. Things like warrantless surveillance, over-reaching executive privilege, extraordinary rendition, torture, and imprisonment of American citizens without trial. If you had that on the poll, I'd have definitely voted for it.
Why aren't you comparing the Iraq war to all the nonaction by Clinton in regards to terrorism intelligence that he looked at prior to 9/11?
I'm angrier at Colin Powell, George Tenet and Condoleeza Rice than I am at Bush, because all three of these people clearly should have known better. Bush is guilty of refusing to question bad intelligence from CIA and MI6, poor reporting from the New York Times, poor military strategy, Democrat compliance, and electorate complacency; but I don't think a single person other than Dick Morris advised the former law professor to lie under oath, or to his wife so she could embarrass herself on the Today Show. Oh, and Clinton made it a lot easier for Shrub to get elected by helping mobilize evangelists. Of course I'd take a perjury scandal over a ****ty war any day of the week. Hell, I'd take two Watergates and a Great Depression over a ****ty war.
I'm also angry at everyone you mention, but Bush chose each of those people to be in his cabinet and he sets the tone for how major decisions are made by his administration. I just don't see how Bush isn't the #1 target of your disgust. I'm more disappointed at Powell than anyone else because I actually respected his integrity. Anyone who thinks the Iraq disaster is "more acceptable" than whatever Clinton did in the Lewinsky scandal (adultery, lying, etc) please explain your position. I'd love to know how a sane person can reach that conclusion. I was more mad at Clinton's hypocrisy and lying during the Lewinsky scandal than I thought was possible. I was more upset at him than the Republicans were. But clearly the Iraq mess will cause incalculable damage to our country compared to the other. Not even close. Another comment on Clinton, this time Hillary. She knew the Lewinsky stuff was true the moment it broke (and reports leaked out about their estrangement), but she pretended (in public) to believe Bill's denial in order to help his defense. A few months later after the stained dress became public, his supposed confession to her at that time and her public disappointment was one of the most vulgar displays of hypocrisy I've ever seen. I have no love for the Clintons at all.
..but nobody is perfect. all of the presidents have weak points. the problem with republicans, even if it's not elction season, they keep on campaigning against the dems, looking for any loopholes to oust any democrat in office. ..and at leaset, Clinton made the economy a lot better. .. for GWB, he succeeded in doing the opposite. No doubt the worst president in the history of the USA.
clinton's strategy was different. many times he ordered assasination of Bin Laden. That's much better than invasion. Less casualties and less budget.
If Clinton had invaded Afganistan or had Madeline Albright taken up the Sudanese offer of Bin Laden in exchange for political relations - 9/11 may never have had happen. He made mistakes as well.
i'm not sure about the first one. we already invaded Afghanistan but Bin Laden is still on the run. The best way to take him out is thru covert operation.
I think he may have had a harder time plotting the attacks and providing support had he been on the run. But hindsight is always 20/20. That's sort of the point. I don't think either Clinton or Bush can be blamed for 9/11. But Clinton sort of botched his chances, but left Bush a plan to correct it, Bush didn't do it, and then he botched up the response. So what can you do?
Oh come on. Even if it had been justified on behalf of the national interest (at the time, not in hindsight) there's not a chance in hell the Republican Congress would have approved any funds for that because: 1. They didn't take OBL seriously. 2. Clinton was President. And... go check any number of reputable sources on the Sudan thing. For instance, here's the 9-11 Commission:
I still to this day feel betrayed by that. Some people just earn your trust, and Powell had done that for me. When Powell gave the speech to the UN where he itemized all of the weapons that Saddam had, I thought war was necessary. Not immediate war, mind you, I never thought Iraq was an imminent threat, but that it would be eventually necessary. When I look back on it, it's like being punched in the stomach.
And no effect. You assassinate bin Laden, and someone immediately steps in, portrays bin Laden as a martyr, uses it to drum up support for his twisted cause. "The empirical Satan has killed the leader, but is too cowardly to really fight." Perhaps the only thing worse than going in full force and stirring up a hornet's nest is to stand back from afar and poke a stick in that hornets nest.
How do you know if Clinton is lying? His mouth is open How do you know if Bush is lying? The death toll rises.
