Could be. George Washington was accused of killing a French ambassador in peacetime, and Andrew Jackson shot a guy in a duel, but autres temps autres moeurs.
Diogenes the Cynic said:
Okay. How would you rate the Clinton Administration’s opposition to military aid to Rwanda, while the local U.N. representatives were screaming that a massacre was about to happen, and while Canada’s proposal for a defensive force was actively scuttled by Madelaine Albright?
Where does looking the other way while 800,000 helpless people are hacked to death with machetes fit on your scale of amorality?
Pretty high. I called the whole time for intervention in Rwanda. Clinton was wrong. In fairness, though, I have to say that he wouldn’t have gotten authorization from congress for such an action, nor would he have gotten much public support. He may have been able to bypass congress and intervene anyway but he made a more calculated political decison* rather than a moral one. So, yes, I would call that an amoral decison by Clinton and congess. I think it’s disgusting that we, as a country, ignored Rwanda.
Lying about a causus belli for war and sending people to die under false pretenses, I would call decidedly immoral.
The end result of “sending people to die under false pretenses” is the overthow of a despotic, murderous regime. The end result of Clinton’s “amoral” “political decision” was allowing 800,000 people to be murdered, and the murderers to gain power.
Looking from a slightly Pop-Machiavellian (as in “the ends justifies the means”) standpoint, and with both politicians understanding the outcome of their decisions before they were made, how would you, DtheC, characterize the two decisions? One is being argued to having been made with deceit, and the other, with foreknowledge of a massacre.
Never mind, you seems to have addressed that question. Sorry.
Are you very tall, Uncle Bill? And do people call you “Stretch”?
I am 6’2". I have no idea to what you are referring, though.
Really?
“I did not have sex with that woman”
If that wasn’t contemptible, I don’t know what is.
The difference here is this: We can state for a fact that Bill Clinton knowingly lied under oath. To this point (note the words “to this point”) we have no proof that Bush lied about WMDs (and believe me, I’ll be really cheesed off if he did since if it was a lie I was fooled).
So to me, the jury is still out. That’s not to say that my mind can’t or won’t be changed in the future, but that’s where it stands right now.
He’s referring to the great lengths he sees you going to for justification. Kinda in the same vein as “stretching the truth”.
For a guy named elucidator, he sure can be vague and ambiguous. Sometimes instead of attempting to be clever he should just say what he means instead of being intentionally opaque.
[sub]Did I say that out loud?[/sub]
More to the point, the whole issue of WMDs contributed in no small part to that whole “Airman Doors is going to a place that’s considered a war zone” thing. I dunno exactly how close you were to harm’s way, but there’s lots of places you could have been that I think we can all agree are safer;) I think people may be slightly more cheesed at W if it turns out that evidence was fabricated to the knowledge of those involved (i.e. W and his cabinet) re: WMDs.
I was close enough. And that was too close by far.
Personally, I don’t see lying about a blow job as particularly contemptible. he never should have been asked the question in the first place. AFAIAC, he was perfectly entitled to a hummer if he wanted one, it’s a free country after all, and he was perfectly justified in lying about it when it was nobody’s business to begin with. The “under oath” part doesn’t mean shit to me since I don’t think the question was material, and therefore not perjurous, but even I allow some technical illegality, it’s still rather insignificant. There’s technical illegality and there’s real criminality. The Clinton/Lewisnski thing was all just a game to get BC. They set a perjury trap and he fell in. The real substance of that “crime” is rather trivial, though. Neither the suck job nor BC’s dissembling killed anyone or caused any twelve-year olds to get their arms blown off.
I would say that if GWB knowingly lied about WMDs in Iraq, then that is an actively immoral act, while Clinton’s hummer and “perjury” were merely amoral.
BTW, Airman, I’m glad you’re back home safe, regardless of my politics.
Diogenes, just so I’m clear on your stance here, do you classify adultery as amoral or immoral? How about lying to your spouse? I am aware that, in the grand scheme of things, infidelity is a few degrees lower on the Scale of Shitty Things than bombing people without cause, just FWIW:)
As grateful as I am for the benefit of Airman’s age and wisdom, I urge him not to lavish his attentions on me. I am more than well supplied with people who feel duty bound to keep me apprised of my many failings and shortcomings, and note the new ones as they evolve. By an astonishing conincidence, they are unanimously female!
I would call adultery, per se amoral if the spouse was aware of it, and immoral if the spouse was not. I don’t think it’s the sex that’s bad, it’s the lying and betrayal.
But I have to say, if Hillary was really surprised by Bill’s infidelity then she was the only person on earth who was. My assumption is that they had long ago reached some sort of agreement. I think she was pissed that he got caught, and that he showed such poor judgement in not being more discrete, but i honestly don’t believe that she thought he was faithful.
If she legitimately thought he was faithful, and she legitimately was caught by surprise, then I would say that it was immorality on Bill’s part, not only to Hillary, but to Chelsea.
I also think that it was none of the public’s business. It may have been immoral but it was a private immorality not a public one. It did not involve an abuse of his office (o.k. maybe the Oval Office 
)
I could argue as well that it wasn’t very ethical for GWB to operate a vehicle while under the influence but it wasn’t the crime of the century. We’re all guilty of petty venalities, but the cynical exploitation of military power for political gain is in a different ballpark.
You’re a trip, dude. 
Scylla is male, elucidator;)
And Diogenes, FWIW I was surprised to find out all (or what of it that I have found out;)) of what Clinton did with women who were not named Hillary. I am also incredibly gullible even now, an was much more so back in the day. Takes all kinds;)
I don’t think the current Administration is the most immoral (not amoral) one in the history of the US. Better examples have already been named. Reagan and Nixon definitely have GWB beat so far, although in fairness, GWB isn’t done yet, so let’s wait and see.
As for the deliberate skewing of intelligence information to suit an exisiting agenda: duh. Anyone with a functioning brain could observe that from day 1.
Must be a lot of people around here with non-functional brains, Coldfire.