Clinton lied about sex. Bush lied about war. Which is worse?

Question

Clinton's escapades(sexcapdes?) were embarrassing, but no one died because of them.

The Taliban is still in power every where else but Kabul. Heroin production is though the roof. Where have you been?

Bush has lied to the American public. Just not under oath. That is the difference. He is still a liar.

Billy or whatever in the hell your name is: I fought as young Marine In Vietnam. My dad fought in Europe in WWII. Lying about war and sending young men to fight for your mistakes is wrong. I did that. You did not. It is easy to be a hero when you never have to leave the couch.

bush and cheney have had 4 duiis collectively.

U.S. Marines 1968-1971

Answer 1

As you know, war is noble and glorious, while sex is the work of Satan, so of course Clinton's lies are far worse.

Actually, I was very angry at President Clinton. For a president, the act of lying under oath in a federal court proceeding is like spitting on the Constitution.

That being said, any comparison with President Bush's actions is ludicrous. There is arguably no more far-reaching decision a government can make than the choice to go to war, and for the president to sell his war with baldfaced lies is unconscionable.

Answer 2

First of all I still find it funny that we are still listening to this drivel. First of all at the time of the beginning of the war virtually every intelligence agency in the world agreed about WMD's. They were wrong clearly,but wrong is not lying by any definition. If you tell someone it's cold and rainy outside but it has stopped since the last time you looked out the window,it doesn't make you a liar,just wrong. As for Clinton let us forget the Bill part of the Clinton machine and instead focus on Hillary,because if Bush lied then so did she. Every word he said she said at one point or another,she spent the entire build up to the war trying to prove to voters on the right how tough she was,and to pretend she didn't have access to the facts is a farce. She sleeps next to the man who ran the US for the 8 years before what at that point was only the second year of Bush's term. Nothing changes that quick so wouldn't Bill have told her there was no way the information she was being given was true? But he didn't,most likely because he believed it too.

AD

Answer 3

Clintons sex life was completely personal and was something only he had to deal with. The paparazzi got involved and made a huge stink about it.
Bush on the other hand is costing tax payers billions of dollars and the lives of many people.
I say Bush is worse.

Answer 4

Here's the deal (and I'm a moderate...don't watch Fox News, don't watch CNN (I watch Sci-Fi!)):

Clinton lied under oath. Very, very wrong. But he lied about something that was very much (and I don't think anyone would disagree) his personal life. If anyone challenged JFK back in the day in public about diddling Marilyn Monroe, does anyone at all have a doubt about how that would end? I'm not justifying Clinton's actions, but I will say that the politcal machinery brought to bear by Republicans at that point was overkill (and I'm a registered Republican!). There was the furvor to tarnish his rep and remove him from office, but looking back on it from where we are now, it just feels...well...silly! I wish we could all have a do-over.

Bush, I actually give credit to: he went balls-out with Iraq when he (and the rest of the government at the time) thought they had WMDs. Aside from coming off as inarticulate in the media (and everyone's got their thing: JFK was Catholic, Reagan had Alzheimers, and Clinton was a man-ho), he told the country what he was about, stuck to his guns under fire, and kept on trucking. What you see is what you got, no one lied. Let me repeat that for the question itself: BUSH DID NOT LIE ABOUT WMDs. CLINTON DID LIE ABOUT LEWINSKY (that doesn't even sound right when I re-read that, and yet we're comparing the two...but I guess Monica was "da bomb" (LOL!)).

The problem people have with the current state of affairs (including myself) is less about the WMD error, but more about the intentional twisting of the truth regarding the connection between bin Laden and Iraq. What I do know as factual is that Bush was actively manuevering for a confrontation with Iraq from the first 100 days in office (remember "Axis of Evil"?). It was the top of his enemies list RE foreign powers, he mentioned it more than any other country in press conferences as being a problem. And then 9/11 happened, and somehow a link was intentionally built to connect bin Laden to Hussein. If everyone remembers, there was a HUGE stretch of time when "there were connections" before we started saying "...AND they've got NUKES." America was getting pushed in front of this thing by the connection argument, and then the nukes thing tipped it over...boom: war. The sick thing is that a LOT of people even at the time it was happening were scratching out heads and didn't get the link. Turns out there wasn't one. Was it a lie? I don't know. Was there a preconception that someone wanted to make a reality? Oh, yes.

Bush's other issue is that he doesn't know when to quit. I think oil interests are driving the machinery now and that's what's keeping us from leaving. I also am more than upset about the lack of closure on the big fuss that was happening LY about gas prices...weren't we supposed to go after Big Oil and see how their record profits made sense in light of record price hikes? But that drifted off course and poof! gone (for Congress too). And now we're hovering at $3+ a gallon but no one's complaining anymore because we're America and we have the attention span of a gnat...unless it's a war, we don't stick with issues for the long haul and our memories are shorter than a mouse's shlong.

Both of these guys turned out to be weak sisters and not guys I'd want to have over at a barbque (OK, maybe Clinton at Spearmint Rhino...). Bush's sins are misdirection and denial; Clinton's sins were lying about fellatio and the really abyssmaly poor job he did in managing foreign intelligence resources during his term. If you want to hate him for something, that'd be the thing. If we'd had human assets inside of these organizations back in the '90s, we would have known about the attack and been able to prevent it.*

I'll forgive the guy a BJ, but his dismantling of the CIA is unforgivable...

Sorry, killing time in a wating room here...

Answer 5

It's not just about Clinton's affairs . Never was . Liberals want you to think so - to take the focus off Clinton's ( Both Clintons ) list of corruption . For one thing - what's with the Clinton body count ? Can somebody explain that ? The corruption of the Clinton's as the most corrupt in the White House , is all documented . Listed is a tiny sampling into the corruption of the Clintons ..

Answer 6

Clinton committed sexual harrassment which would have gotten you or me fired in the workplace. Bush never lied by any legal terms. What he did was more like a used car sales trick. You see Saddam had WMD's at one time...this was proven because the UN was having Saddam destroy them after Saddam INVADED Kuwait. The problem was a accounting error in which some WMD's weren't accounted for as being destroyed...hence the whole WMD's thing. When the public wanted the war they saw the WMD's, when the public got bored of it they suddenly acted as if they never existed. Neither Presidents were good, why can't we get a Tony Blair?

Answer 7

America died of embarrassment from Clinton. We still have troops in Bosnia and troops did die under Clinton in Bosnia. Troops died in Somalia when Clinton refused to give them the armor they asked for. Sailors died on the U.S.S Cole and Clinton did nothing. People died in our embassies and Clinton did nothing. Americans died at Waco and Ruby Ridge under Clinton. I take that back Clinton did Monica. AND he sealed the evidence on his impeachment which included more than lying under oath according to the House Managers Democrat lawyer, for 50 years. I will be 104 when I get to read it.

Additional: Gore said that the WMD's were there but under Clinton they were all destroyed by air strikes. Why didn't he tell us sooner.

Answer 8

for sure, in human words, Bush's lie has wreaked some distance extra effective injury than Clinton's adultery. How God will choose each and each of them, i'm going to flow away to God, (even although I do ask your self why those very comparable people who say "sin is sin" in God's eyes, get so freaked out via gay Marriage. If sin is sin, and each physique who has did not settle for Christ, in exactly their proscribed way, is an unrepentant sinner, why is homosexuality extra threatening than the on a regular basis lies instructed for the duration of maximum each financial transaction on Wall highway for the final 8 years? back, hypothetically, the gay couple's sin hurts no person yet their own probabilities of stepping into heaven, on an identical time as we can all be identifying to purchase sub-best mortgage deceptions for some years yet to return.) regrettably, in criminal words, i think of mendacity in a public speech is probable secure via the 1st exchange, on an identical time as mendacity under oath in civil court docket intending isn't. whether we ought to get around the 1st exchange via claiming Bush's speech incited human beings to violence (not a secure type of speech), he nevertheless has the comparable available deniability of saying to have been deceive via defective intelligence that each physique the senators used for the duration of that 4 years of the conflict's lowering attractiveness.

Answer 9

Bush was misled as were ALL the senators who voted for the war. What was Bill's excuse? He thought Monica was Hillary under the desk in a blue dress and brown wig?

Answer 10

If Clinton hadn't lied about sex, then Al Gore would have been able to use him for support, and Bush would never have won (stolen is a better word), and there might still be a war, but we'd have allies, and would have done it right. So if you cause a chain of events that are not entirely foreseeable, but certainly not entirely unforeseeable either, what is your responsibility for any escalation of consequences?

That doesn't mean that Bush isn't a dummy as well as a liar, just that he could have remained a relatively harmless one.