# What was so bad about Clinton? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2003, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568 "2003-01-24T00:00:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/41 "2003-01-24T19:52:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* > \*\*Reagan isn’t admired because he was a great politician. He’s admired because he was a great visionary who had a knack for putting things in simple terms, rather than muddling everything up with morally relativistic shades of gray. Russia wasn’t this country that had a very complicated history that we should explore before we pass any judgement, they were the Evil Empire. They were the Bad Guy. He had a moral clarity that was invigorating… > > Do you really see no difference between trying a few suspects in US criminal courts, and using our military to try to tear down the entire terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan? \*\* Just making sure I understand: Reagan had the moral clarity to lay the groundwork for the terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan in the name of weakening the Evil Empire, so that W. Bush could come along after the E.E. succumbed and kill thousands in the name of cleaning up what his predecessor helped build? If this morality were water, I’d have to be really thirsty to take a sip of it. ---
**Author:** ![XJETGIRLX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9fc29f/32.png) [@XJETGIRLX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XJETGIRLX)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/42 "2003-01-24T19:54:47Z")
Well, among other reasons already stated here, I think _Der Slickmeister_ should be prosecuted for crimes against innocent tobacco products. And for having poor taste in women. _Eck_! :o ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/43 "2003-01-24T19:56:45Z")
"The people look to the President to get cues on what is acceptable. " If they do, they’re damned fools. Presidents are calculating, manipulative, egotists who would, by and large, sell their grandmothers to win office. They would have never risen to the heights they have by being any different, and, by that measure, they can be said to be successful in their chosen profession (such as it is). ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/44 "2003-01-24T19:57:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* > \*\* > > - Cheat on your wife. > - \*\* This is pretty much what your post boils down to, and tghe problem with it is, lots of other presidents are KNOWN to have cheated on their wives, but no one hates their guts for it. When’s the last time you heard someone get on Eisenhower’s case as a slimeball horndog? So, bzzzzt. Wrongo. Does not compute. I think Repubs hated Clinton because the cons control the media now, and they orchestrated a good ol’ fashion Nazi-style hate campaign against Clinton, and it worked. Lordy, did it work. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/45 "2003-01-24T20:05:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Icarus \* > \*\* (Did anyone…really…start out loving him and then transform into a hater? Be honest, the haters started out that way.) \*\* Well, I started out liking him and, by the end of his presidency, was disappointed by him. He just, too often, seemed unwilling to stand up to the Republicans. He signed DOMA and the welfare bill. I’m still pissed at his treatment of Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, and I’ll admit it, the whole Monica Lewinsky thing bothered me. I still like him better than GWB or Reagan, but he’s not my dream president. ---
**Author:** ![Boris\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/fbc32d/32.png) [@Boris\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boris_B)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/46 "2003-01-24T20:05:50Z")
**ElJeffe** wrote, > [@](#): > > … it was Saddam who effectively ended the inspections, not the UN. > > There should have been some reaction to this be the US. At the very least there should have been some posturing and implicit threats by the US. But we didn’t even get that - we just got a nod and a shrug from Clinton. Here’s a cite for Jeff and anyone in danger of believing him: [http://www.fair.org/activism/post-expulsions.html](http://www.fair.org/activism/post-expulsions.html) > [@](#): > > December 16, 1998. Richard Butler, head of the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq, had just released a report accusing the Iraqi regime of obstructing U.N. weapons checks. On the basis of that report, President Clinton announced he would launch airstrikes against Iraqi targets. (Yes, the airstrikes did happen; here’s another good cite [http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998\_9812171.html](http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1998/n12171998_9812171.html) .) Perhaps certain right-wingers selectively forget this because it goes against their deeply-held belief that someone who got a draft deferment cannot decisively use military force. I doubt it, though. I think it is because they don’t want to remember how much the right criticized Clinton’s use of force at the time. Dick Armey said > [@](#): > > I would like to think that no American president would even consider using the military to help him remain in office. But the fact that Americans are expressing these doubts shows that the president is losing his ability to lead. Armey wasn’t willing to _make_ charges, just to insinuate them. Trent Lott revealed himself as the pussifying liberal he so obviously is\*. > [@](#): > > 16 December 1998 – IN WHAT IS BELIEVED TO BE AN UNPRECEDENTED ACTION, U-S SENATE MAJORITY (REPUBLICAN) LEADER TRENT LOTT ANNOUNCED HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT AMERICAN MILITARY STRIKES ON IRAQ - IN PART, HE SAYS, BECAUSE THE TIMING IS SUSPECT. ( [http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/16/](http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/16/) ) Yeah, somehow I think it’s safe to chalk up the “Clinton never directly responded to Saddam demoralizing UNSCOM” as another bit of rabid - and ahistorical - Clinton-bashing. Out of curiosity, do you guys think his timing of the Ruby Ridge action was designed to distract attention from the scandals?\* - sarcasm ---
**Author:** ![Boris\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/fbc32d/32.png) [@Boris\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boris_B)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/47 "2003-01-24T20:18:07Z")
**ElJeffe** Do you really see no difference between trying a few suspects in US criminal courts, and using our military to try to tear down the entire terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan? Further, while we haven’t gotten bin Laden, we have still nabbed a helluva lot of al Qaeda bigwigs.\*\* Sure. The difference is obvious. I’m not sure exactly which government you would have had us overthrow in the wake of WTC '93, and exactly how this would be done if there weren’t a convenient multi-ethnic coalition holed up on the frontier of said itching to take control if only someone gave them some weapons and intelligence. As far as the relative importance of the people convicted after the 1993 attack and the people captured in the Afganistan campaign, I don’t really know. ---
**Author:** ![CTB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@CTB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CTB)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/48 "2003-01-24T20:36:12Z")
**ElJeffe** , OK. Explain how “_putting things in simple terms, rather than muddling everything up with morally relativistic shades of gray_” is a good thing. The current resident of the oval office gets a similar compliment from many and I fail to see how it is a positive. The world is not now, nor has it ever been black and white. It not only has many shades of grey, it has an entire spectrum of color that makes it such a challenge to understand. Besides not making your brain hurt with too much strenuous cognition, why should I be comforted by inane labels such as “evil empire” and “axis of evil” (and I mean “your” in the general sense, not a direct attack)? This bi-chromatic view lead us to the mess we are in today IMHO. We treated other countries as pawns, they know it, and they rightfully resent it. We supported heinous regimes and organizations such as the the Shah in Iran, the Mujaheideen in Afghanistan, and later the Taliban, the Marcos regime in the Phillipines, etc., etc., ad infinitum (I believe that our support for these regimes and the rationale behind it are common knowledge, but I will provde cites upon request). To my mind, what was comforting about Clinton is that he showed that he recognized that things were complex, discussed them with facts a citations off the top of his head, and admitted that there were no clear answers. I liked knowing that someone was noodling this stuff through. Honestly, can you really be stating that Reagan was great because he put things simply? This whole “moral clarity” thing? I honestly didn’t think that anyone really fell for that. :eek: CTB ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/49 "2003-01-24T20:49:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Exactly what article of the Constitution says this??? > > What you are describing is more along the lines of a monarch. This is America. We don’t have those. The role of the president as a moral compass is not written anywhere in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so. “Role Model” probably isn’t in the job description of pro-athletes, yet children still look up to them, and as such athletes have an implicit responsibility to act as good role models, as well. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![lout](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@lout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lout)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/50 "2003-01-24T20:55:21Z")
I think that the hatred of Clinton is based on the fact that Clinton was the first President from the post-WWII generation. WWII was the last time in our history when America could really feel great about itself in the heroic sense, at least according to popular mythology. The post WWII era has been a time of self-doubt, anxiety and defeat, and for certain republicans (the Scaife type can serve as a symbol) Clinton epitomized all of that. Combine that with Clinton’s obvious sex appeal and “loose morals” and you have a target for a lot of loathing. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/51 "2003-01-24T21:02:17Z")
Anybody wanna take a crack at Jeff’s selective use of moral outrage about personal conduct, depending on the party of the politician involved? It can’t be my turn yet, can it? ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/52 "2003-01-24T21:15:18Z")
> [@](#): > > The role of the president as a moral compass is not written anywhere in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so. . Translation: the facts are against me, but I’m still right. So, nanny-nanny-boo-boo. **ElvisL1ves** : He’s alllll yours. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/53 "2003-01-24T21:22:24Z")
**light strand:** > [@](#): > > Jeff, do you honestly believe that Bush would have gone after al queda if the WTC attack hadn’t happened? > > According to Newsweek he was warned by the Clinton administration to watch out for them when he first came into office and shrugged it off as his hand-off policy in the mid-east. I certainly am not blaming him, but I do think that you must realize that hindsight is 20/20 Maybe, maybe not. I don’t deny that 9/11 is probably what put “Wipe out al Qaeda” on the top of his to-do list. The thing is, it’s politically more difficult to respond to threats several years after the fact. I believe, though, that GWB’s response to the terrorist attacks would have been very different - and more effective - than Clinton’s. For example, if Bush had been the one who was handed bin Laden on a silver platter, he would’ve taken him. **Evil Captor:** No, “cheating on his wife” is only one part of it, and not even the biggest part. It was his entire attitude regarding the matter, both during and after. He never even tried to appear remorseful, and he broke the law repeatedly in trying to cover his ass. He showed a lack of respect for the public, and for the laws he’s supposed to uphold. Just because you choose to ignore my reasoning for disliking the man doesn’t mean you can summarize it as “he cheated on his wife”. I think adultery is a horrible thing that is still possible to atone for. Clinton never bothered to atone. He didn’t care to, and he didn’t need to, as far as the dems were concerned. This greatly disturbs me. **CTB:** > [@](#): > > OK. Explain how “putting things in simple terms, rather than muddling everything up with morally relativistic shades of gray” is a good thing. Gladly. Do you deny that the Soviet Union was an awful entity? You think the gulag was just fine and dandy? The USSR was, quite literally, an “evil empire”. It’s very existence was a threat to the world, and it needed to be dismantled, and its people freed. This was not subject to debate, it was a given, and Reagan had the good ol’ fashioned cojones to stand up and say so. The USSR was evil. Period. Being wishy-washy about the fact helps nobody. Asserting it loudly to the world does. Similarly, being wishy-washy about the nature of terrorists does nobody any good. Those who would massacre thousands of innocents are evil, end of story. Saying so is admirable. The Reuter’s official line about “one man’s terrorist being another man’s freedom fighter” is abject bullshit. Granted, the world is a place full of shades of gray, but there are black-and-white issues. Rape is always bad. Murdering innocent people for the sake of terror is always bad. Western democracy is fundamentally better than Communism, fundamentally better than Islamic fascism. In a world full of grays, it is helpful and - indeed - critical to be able to point to the few instances of black and white we can find. It is these few cases of definitive right and definitive wrong that serve as the guide by which we can ascribe meaning to all that gray. And those who are willing to stand up to the intellectual left and say, “I don’t care what you say, this here is just plain evil,” should be looked up to. > [@](#): > > To my mind, what was comforting about Clinton is that he showed that he recognized that things were complex, discussed them with facts a citations off the top of his head, and admitted that there were no clear answers. I liked knowing that someone was noodling this stuff through. Sorry, but sometimes there _are_ simple answers - just not easy ones. Someone who’s never willing to admit that there is a simple answer is no better than someone who believes everything has a simple answer. > [@](#): > > Honestly, can you really be stating that Reagan was great because he put things simply? This whole “moral clarity” thing? I honestly didn’t think that anyone really fell for that. Believe it, brother. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/54 "2003-01-24T21:29:55Z")
Oh, please. Reagan!? And what is with the litany of dicto simpliciter? Reagan so bloated government that its belly exploded. He (like Bush) created a whole new bureaucratic department out of whole cloth. He assisted in the tyranny of whole nations of people. He oversaw the military occupation of land in more than half the nations on earth. He lied about underhanded dealings with enemy states. He blew money on speculative military posturing. He strangled the life out of space exploration. Reagan. Gah. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/55 "2003-01-24T21:34:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by plnnr \* > \*\*“WRONG, > What we need is a President who acts on his campaign pledges, does what he says he will, and does not lie directly to our faces.” > > You’ve just identified criteria for a saint, not a President. And no saint is ever going to be elected to any office, nor would he or she want to be so elected. \*\* That is your opinion, that doesn`t mean we shouldn`t expect or demand it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/56 "2003-01-24T21:35:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you also hate Reagan for not doing anything in Beirut after the Marine Corps barracks bombing there? **light strand** , I’ll have you eat those words, by gum! Don’t you know what Reagan did in response to that bombing? He _invaded Grenada!!_ See, the Great Communicator knew how to send a message. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/57 "2003-01-24T21:36:16Z")
ElvisL1ves: > [@](#): > > Anybody wanna take a crack at Jeff’s selective use of moral outrage about personal conduct, depending on the party of the politician involved? It can’t be my turn yet, can it? Can you please point out something I’ve said that ignores the personal conduct of someone? Please identify both the person, and a specific act of conduct about which you feel I’m being “selective”. CaptMurdock: > [@](#): > > Translation: the facts are against me, but I’m still right. So, nanny-nanny-boo-boo. I guess you don’t mind if politicians are complete sleazewads, as long as they do their job. I do, inasmuch as they’re public figures, and their behavior influences that of the rest of us. But please, let’s try to act like grown-ups here, shall we? Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/58 "2003-01-24T21:53:33Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* \*\*The people look to the President to get cues on what is acceptable. \*\* Then it’s acceptable for kids to be poor students who lie about drunk driving convictions and get Daddy to get them off the hook and set them up in business with his friends? It’s acceptable to admit you really don’t enjoy reading long books? It’s acceptable if use family influence to stay out of the draft but not if you earn exemption through exemplary schoolwork? Or should we impeach Bush Too too? \*\*And they look to the President, and they see the paragon of human achievement. \*\* I thought that was what messiahs were for to the religious and Nobel prizewinners were for to non-believers. **They see the man that all people should strive to be - someone to be respected, someone to be emulated. He is the ultimate role model.** Andy Griffith? \*\*As Role Model Number One, the President has certain responsibilities. One of these is to not be a lecherous, deceitful slimebag. \*\* “deceiful slimebag” is subjective, but if you define lechery as having sexually improper thoughts or behaviour then you just eliminated George Washington (hated his mother and lusted for his best friend’s wife), Thomas Jefferson (Sally Hemings of course, as well as the very married Ms. Cosway), Franklin Pierce (killed a woman while driving drunk), James Buchanan (almost without question gay), Lincoln (just what was that Joshua Speed thing all about? or that atheist phase?), James A. Garfield (very possibly bisexual), Grover Cleveland (admitted fathering an illegitimate son he didn’t support, married his ward, and was according to some sources was a wifebeater), Benjamin Harrison (began dating his wife’s niece almost immediately after his wife’s death), Theodore Roosevelt (abandoned his oldest daughter for years after the death of her mother), Warren G. Harding (womanizer [also probably lied about black ancestry]), FDR (womanizer married to a lesbian), Eisenhower (womanizer), JFK (get outta heah), Nixon (adulterer, then that Watergate thing was kinda bad too), Reagan (divorce’ and deadbeat dad whose much younger second wife was pregnant at their marriage), Bush, Sr. (probable adulterer who delayed investigation of banking scandals until after an election so as not to receive flack from his son Neil’s involvement), and all of those are just off the top of my head. I’m sure you could go president-by-president and pull up enough information that their Mama would slap 'em with a catfish. \*\*In addition to lying about it to us, the people, the ones who get their moral cues from him, he told Monica to lie _under oath_. He himself lied _under oath_. \*\* The most ardent Clinton supporter (which I’m not) would agree that his handling of the Lewinsky business was wrong and amazingly unwise for a man of such political skills. OTOH, it never should have been public knowledge in the first place, and to quote the wisest political pundit out there, Mr. Chris Rock: “Be honest… if you had a choice of pissing off a God that you can’t see and who’s supposed to be forgiving, or a wife that you can see and who’s not forgiving, which way would you go?” ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/59 "2003-01-24T21:55:17Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* \*\*I don’t deny that 9/11 is probably what put “Wipe out al Qaeda” on the top of his to-do list. \*\* Ya think? I’m still trying to understand how moral univision’s a good thing. Or, not to violate a Godwin’s Law style premise, but how that would make us the moral superiors of the Taliban or the Nazis. ---
**Author:** ![light\_strand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2003, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568/60 "2003-01-24T22:02:31Z")
RTFirefly I know he did, that’s why I specified “in Beirut”. Jeff, when exactly was bin laden handed to Clinton? If I remember correctly he [bombed](http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/det.cfm?id=141) Afghanistan when he had intellegence information that bin laden was there, and I will say, once again, that after this bombing he was accused of “wagging the dog”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-so-bad-about-clinton/150568.md?page=4)