Which scenario do you find more morally reprehensible?

Question

1. Adultry

2. Using the deaths of 3,700 victims of a terrorist act to start an unwarranted war that benefits defense contractors? Oh, yeah - the number of Americans killed in this conflict are now close to surpassing those killed in the terrorist act, with no end in sight.

Rhetorical question, I guess.

Answer 1

The standard line from conservatives about the Clinton impeachment is that it was about the cover-up, not about the act.

"He lied under oath" is what they say.

OK. Personally, I thought lying and deception was a job requirement for President. Take Bush as an example.

There is growing evidence that Bush defrauded the nation willfully into the Iraq War. The Downing Street memos, which prove "the intelligence is being fixed" around a case for War, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Defrauding the nation into war is a terrible treason against the State, and certainly qualifies as an impeachable offense. And, it is far worse than lying under oath about your personal life.

Believing that your personal life is not the business of the opposing political party is a reasonable position.

Believing that the public is fair game to be duped into an immensely costly war is a far more serious matter.

I mean, objectively, you cannot even compare the two.

But, while we are on the subject of morality, let's not stop talking about Clinton just at the Monica thing.

Clinton bombed Iraq for his eight years in office and enacted Draconian embargos on the people of Iraq. Many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis died -- probably more than in the entire war.

So, we cannot say Clinton is on the moral high ground relative to Bush.

However, when just talking about impeachable offenses, it has been argued by former White House Counsel John Dean, who is obviously a leading expert on the subject, that the impeachable offenses of Bush 43 FAR SURPASS what Nixon did.

From lying to get us into an illegal war, there is:

+ Use of torture
+ Detaining citizens without trial
+ Declaring illegal pre-emptive war (Nuremburg rules)
+ Illegal wiretapping of citizens without a warrant
+ Criminal negligence in Katrina incident

Et cetera. You could go on and on all day. Bush 43 should be impeached. This is true especially in light of the fact that Clinton was impeached for something relatively trivial.

Answer 2

convinced, it really is incorrect to kill a toddler. regardless of the indisputable fact that, it really is not incorrect to abort a fetus it really is inviable and lacks sentience. that is hence not incorrect to allow females the right to decide on no matter if or not they decide on this inviable, insentient organism feeding off of their nutrition and growing interior their bodies or not. and also you're proper about sex education being completely the different way up in this u . s . a .. that is a demonstrable shown reality that the states with the utmost prevalence of "absitenence in hardship-free words" education also magically have the utmost expenditures of STDs, abortions and teenage being pregnant.

Answer 3

3. Rampant and uncontrollable hatred of our country's leaders, coupled with lies and distortions, and capped off with poor spelling to boot.

Answer 4

Gosh, the Bohica's I know in Chicago are no where near as subversive as you .

You cannot equate death tolls to righteousness .

Answer 5

I pick Door #2, Monty! It's like a lot of bumper stickers now say, "Nobody died when Clinton lied."

Answer 6

I find someone who has had three wives, one his cousin, to be morally reprehensible. But he's the Republican front runner....lol

Answer 7

Adultery.

Answer 8

Actually, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Huh, surprised you didn't know that.

Answer 9

Not rhetorical, adultry. Showing the next generation that making too many babies and spreading deadly diseases would certainly cause more future problems.

Answer 10

1.Adultery, it is more believable than your second option.