Eh, picking Bush as a counterexample is just a convenience, because he’s in the news so much these days, but if you want a Bush-free retort, watch this–
I find it typically hypocritical of Republican politicians to condemn Clinton for his moral shortcomings when they have committed acts that are equally – if not even moreso – morally outrageous:
[ul]
[li]Newt Gingrich, inventor of the “Gingrich Defense,” which says you’re not having an affair with a married woman if you restrict your activities to oral sex, and whose idea of intimate pillow talk consists of “If you ever tell anybody about this, I’ll say you’re lying.” He has also reportedly cheated on two of his three wives, which may be a sign of a habit-forming addiction.[/li][li]Dan Burton (R-Indiana), who publicly condemned Clinton as a “scumbag,” only to end up with egg on his face when it was revealed he had secretly fathered a son out of wedlock. Burton’s secrecy about his bastard son was so complete, he didn’t even visit the boy until after the truth was revealed.[/li][li]Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) began airing television commercials urging Clinton to resign over the Lewinsky bruhaha, then confessed a week later that she had previously had a six-year affair with a married man fourteen years ago. She also denied lying about the affair until an Idaho newspaper printed an interview in which she had lied, then brushed off the matter by saying she had “prayed for God’s forgiveness.” :rolleyes:[/li][li]And then there’s Bob Livingston, the House Speaker-elect who resigned in December 1998 after his own extramarital affairs were outed. Oddly enough, when he first admitted his affair to his fellow Republicans at a closed-door caucus, he received a standing ovation. :rolleyes:[/li][li]Then there’s Bob Barr, longtime antiabortionist and Clinton-basher, who met his second wife because of his own extracurricular activities while married to his first. Barr also paid for his first wife to have an abortion, and according to his own sworn divorce testimony, never made any effort to talk her out of it.[/li][/ul]
And that’s just the Republicans in the Capitol – we’d be here all night if we expanded our net, such as Rush Limbaugh (draft-dodging drug-abusing divorcee), William Bennett (sanctimonious gambling addict and Iran-contra apologist), and David Schippers (Republican prosecutor against Clinton who had a 25-year affair with his office manager).
See? And not one Bush, Shrub, or Dubya anywhere in sight.
Great. You appear to have missed the greater point I was trying to make. All that has exactly what to do with the way people perceive Clinton’s legacy now, and what he can do to change how people will regard it in the future? Sure, it’s unfair that people remember Clinton’s character shortcomings, while disremembering equal or greater flaws of others from the same era, but your argument is stilltu quoque—the same thing the lefties gripe about (and correctly so) when Clinton’s malfeasance is dragged into a discussion of Bush’s malfeasance (and likely misfeasance, too.)
I’ll admit to being guilty of trying to make such bogus arguments in the past. And I’m indebted to you and the other lefties for pointing out valid flaws in my arguments. I do find it galling though, to see the very type fallacious argument that is so vehemently protested by the lefties here being used repeatedly by the lefties here. Maybe if more of us eschewed this dubious tactic, as I now make a conscious effort to do, Great Debates would be a much more pleasant place to visit. And less silly, and wholly useless, partisan bickering would take place.
It doesn’t. It equates to “refutation of the false statement made by rjung when he claimed”:
See how it works? You make a mendacious statement completely at variance with the published facts. Then I provide a link to CNN showing that your statement is completely false, and that, far from concluding that the charges against Clinton were unfounded, that Starr concluded there were six instances of lying under oath, as well as obstruction of justice, etc.
Then, unfortunately, you try like hell to ignore that and pretend you didn’t make the statement, but since it is right there in black and white, you simply make yourself look and sound stupid by trying to deny it. As well as (as UncleBeer points out) resort to logical fallacies like tu quoque.
Wrong again. Or should I say “as usual”.
Read thru my posts. Notice the lines that are sort of bluish, and underlined? This is what is called a “hyperlink”. If you put your cursor on this and click, you will be taken to a new window on other websites. That is where my facts are “cribbed from”, and it is CNN and such, not Ann Coulter. You will notice that each of the facts as I have presented them are in direct contradiction to your assertions. In other words, you are wrong and I am right.
Or don’t click, as you prefer. Then you can continue to make posts that are stupid and obviously wrong, and you will continue to be considered a blindly partisan liar.
Weak example, since OJ lost the wrongful death suit. A jury of his peers decided that he did cause the deaths of two people. He just wasn’t convicted of a criminal offense.
BC is still a young man, he is good health and is perhaps the smartest man in politics today. Morally weak, but very smart.
He will live long enough to become an elder statesman to Presidents and the Nation well into the 2020s or so. In that time his public image will become less and less polarizing.
He may very well be proven right on many key issues and might still pay a key role in future events.
I don’t like the guy, but I would not bet against him.
It was merely an attempt to address the whole “Clinton is an embarassment because he lied under oath” – a statement that conveniently ignores the circumstances of the situation and those who sought to judge him.
I simply take the big-picture view of the matter – Clinton lied under oath because he was backed into a corner by his political enemies on trumped-up charges. We’re not even talking assault here, we’re talking consentual sex between two adults. In judging Clinton’s Presidency, the whole Lewinsky matter should be a non-issue, since it had nothing to do with his ability to govern – at least until his political opponents made it into an issue, in which case IMO it reflects poorly on them, not on him.
But for the folks who get all agitated about Bill Clinton, the Lewinsky affair is the alpha and the omega of his Presidency. As an example, look at our friend Shodan, who first goes around with the eye-rolling allegation that Clinton “lied about everything under the sun,” but when pressed on the issue, trouts out a mere six incidents – all of which were tied into the witch hunt. It doesn’t matter what other policies or positions Clinton adopted while in office, the only tool the critics have to use is Monica Lewinsky, which is a non-issue of the highest order.
If we’re here to evaluate the Clinton Presidency, then let’s look at the components of that presidency, such as his policies, goals, and endeavors. His private life had nothing to do with that, despite the efforts of his opponents to make it so.
That’s fine and dandy, I guess. But it sounds to me an awful lot like the old, tired and despicable canard, “The ends justify the means.” You’re simply rationalizing the use of flawed agrumentation tactics. Anybody can do that. And tell themselves that it’s okay for themselves to do. “I have the strength of ten, because in my heart, I’m pure.” Sorry, man. That dog don’t bark.
And the Lewinsky affair witch hunt, which was indeed not something that really needed to be pursued by our government, certainly not with the vigor with which it was engaged, it **did[/d] show us something about Clinton’s poor judgment and lack of character. Which is something I think we oughtta know about our presidents - any of them. In this case, however, the costs to the nation far outweighed the benefits reaped.
Your implication that Clinton’s political opponents forced the man to lie, under oath remember, is downright ludicrous. If he’d stepped up and admitted to having sex with her, what do you think would have happened? And could it possibly have had a more detrimental effect on the public’s, national and international, perception of the U.S. government? Not likely in the least. There sure as hell wouldn’t have been an impeachment—there’d have been no basis for it. And that is the legacy Clinton must overcome. That he, without a doubt, put personal issues, and what he felt best for himself and his political career/legacy/whatever, ahead of national interests. And it happened because the man has poor judgment and lacks character.
What private life? He’s not only a public figure, but at that time he was the single most powerful public figure in the world. At that point everything’s fair game. He becomes the most thoroughly scrutinized person in the world.
Proof that you’re being a hypocrite about this is your harping on Bush’s National Guard service, his drug use, and his alcoholism. It was his personal life, why should it matter?
Oh, that’s right. Bush is a conservative, not like your boy Clinton. :rolleyes:
Absolutely. It’s the truth, even if it does get silly on occasion. I don’t care if Bush falls off a Segway, and I don’t care if Kerry falls off his bike. I do care that in the course of a sexual harassment investigation focusing on the President of the United States he lies about having a relationship, because I can guarandamntee you that were it me under scrutiny for sexual harassment I wouldn’t be getting the kind of support that Clinton got. I’d be thrown to the wolves, and if I lied under oath I’d definitely be going to jail for perjury. What makes Clinton so special that he can break the law with impunity?
And yet, amazingly enough, previous Presidents were able to have extramarital affairs without anyone giving two toots about it. If you believe the rumors that George H. W. Bush avoided using the “bimbo factor” against Clinton for fear that his own infidelity would be outed, then we’re talking about a very recent shift in discretion for public figures.
:rolleyes: Time to break out my Joe-Bob-fu:
Numero uno: Bush’s absence from the National Guard is not a private matter – that’s dereliction of duty, something the military doesn’t treat lightly, as you ought to know. Numero two-o: I do not recall saying one word about Bush’s former alcoholism, nor using it as a reason for criticism of the man. I’m just glad he’s off the wagon. Numero three-o: Cocaine is hardly a private matter, since its possession and use is a violation of numerous local, state, and federal laws. It’s certainly not tolerated in the armed services, last time I checked.
Nonsense. I never said that I respected or admired Clinton’s adultery, or thought it was nothing of consequence. But whatever consequence came out of his games with Monica should have been limited to Bill, Monical, Hillary, and the White House physician. Giving Ken Starr $8 million and six years just to play “Gotcha!” with Bill was not a productive use of the public’s time or money, IMO.
If you want to use the Lewinsky affair to argue that Clinton wasn’t a saint, thought with his pecker more often than he should, and wasn’t smart enough to know better, I’ll gladly help you heap on the firewood. But if you want to use the Lewinsky affair to argue that Clinton’s Presidency as a whole was a disaster, then you’re just exploiting a personal flaw for political gain.
Now, not being a major fan of Clinton in any event, for what it is worth, I do agree about the whole “bluntly lying to the entire country to save his ass” thing, whether he was sworn in or whatever. The BJ? I don’t really care. I don’t look for marital infidelity in candidates, and I pile his cheating onto the heap of things I dislike about him personally, but it doesn’t make him a horrible president, much less deserving of being kicked out of office.
The continued lie? Now that, that I have a problem with. Being able to trust the words that are coming out of the leader of the free world’s mouth, in a perfect world, would be a perfectly sane thing to do. We all know that all presidents have fibbed a little, exaggerated a little, bent the truth a little, but when they say something so blunt, so yes/no, and are plainly lying, they just can’t be trusted with anything else they are saying. Every word that comes out of their mouth - and every word that they said before - becomes clearly suspect.
Back in '98 or whenever that was, my statement was, “yes, it may be a small thing to lie about, but what if he lied to get us into a war?” Unfortunately, that statement turned prophetic, as a president did just that not too long afterwards.
So, in all fairness, the bile that Clinton turned up in my stomach over his little lies is projectile-spat venom against Bush’s big lies.
I have learned enough by now not to trust any politician saying anything, even if it is as simple and plain as, “the sky is blue.” I’ll look and check for myself. Clinton taught me that, Bush drove it home.
Actually, I believe one of the things that came out of the whole Lewinsky thing was the fact that prosecutions for perjury are relatively rare even when it is later learned that someone lied or misled under oath. If you have evidence otherwise, I’d be glad to hear it.
So, it looks like far from Clinton getting special treatment not to charge him, it would have been “special treatment” if they had brought a perjury charge against him.
From my recollection, the Clinton/Lewinski sex scandal was something that had to be pursued. That’s what we heard. Why was this trivial matter so important?
It wasn’t the infidelity that was important. It is the principle of holding the President to his public duty. The President must be someone whom we can trust to conduct himself with the highest standard of candor and honesty and lawfulness. The Republicans stood for this principle. Deviation from that standard of honesty must be publically redressed.
And it’s a reasonable one. I for one, was prepared to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt and accept that they really had a genuine attachment to that high-mindedness.
How long did that adherence to principle last? Until their boy GWB got into power. Now it’s all equivocation and passing the buck. Certainty morphs into ‘intelligence errors’ after the fact. On it goes.
So, Bill Clinton: He rescues his reputation by merely waiting. The passage of time marks the sex scandal as a mean-spirited Republican slur on a successful presidency.
Successful? Yes, it takes a lot of good judgment to know when to allow things to take their course and when to intervene.
