Lesser of two unquestionably popular evils?

Question

I choose to look at both sides of each argument from liberals and conservatives then contrast each against reality so I can appreciate EDUCATED points on both sides. Looking back at Bush's presidency and Clinton's, we can conclude that both of these men lied. The question is which lie was more damaging, cheating on your wife or not finding weapons of mass destruction. Since both sides insist that the other party does damage to American progression, I try to look at which administration caused the most damage objectively. Which President, Bush or Clinton, caused the most strife and suffering? Which president has helped progress the country? Again I didn't like Clinton and I'm certainly not fond of Bush, just looking for opinions. Thanks.

Answer 1

Look at it this way. Bush was using intelligence that was used during the Clinton administration as well so that can not be used as evidence as him lying.

Iraq broke 17 UN Resolutions and Clinton never did anything about it. Each of those resolutions called for a military force if it was broken and the possible ouster of Hussein.

The U.S. was attacked 5 times by Al Qaeda during Clinton's administration and only once during Bush's administration. Clinton only had one response and that was in 1998 after the last attack during his presidency with Operation Infinite Reach. However, prior to the bombing of Al Qaeda targets in Syria and Afghanistan he went public with the plan to minimize the human death toll. Where was this compassion by Al Qaeda? Why was his only response during the whole Lewinsky ordeal? George W. acted after the first attack happened which was within 8 months of being sworn in as President.

How come our troops have found chemical weapons in Iraq that were from the 1980's? I thought weapons inspectors were over there for 12 years before we went into Iraq in 2003. How could these have possible slipped by them? What is up with the massive convoys heading out of Iraq before the 2003 invasion? Perhaps the intelligence wasn't a lie and was merely flawed or off target a little. If it was a lie, we just go back to the very first point made...Clinton had the same intelligence and said the same things about Iraq.

Weapons inspectors found no WMD stockpiles, leading many Americans to feel that the president either lied or cherry-picked intelligence to lead us into war. But the Robb-Silverman Commission concluded that the president didn't lie. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's 511-page report concluded that the president did not lie. The British Butler Commission, which examined whether Prime Minister Tony Blair "sexed up" the intelligence to make a case for war, concluded the PM didn't lie.

Kenneth Pollack, an opponent of the Iraq war, served as Iraq expert and intelligence analyst in the Clinton administration. Pollack writes that during his 1999-2001 tour on the National Security Council, " . . . the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon. . . . The U.S. intelligence community's belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush's inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure. . . . Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. . . . Germany . . . Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States. . . . In sum, (SET ITAL) no one (END ITAL) doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

CIA Analysis, January 2003--Iraqi Support for Terrorism, (p. 314 of Senate Intel Report):
"Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other allies."




I know this answer has been long but there is a lot of information to put out to answer your question. Ensure you read the source link as it contains some stuff I didn't even include in this answer.

Answer 2

Your question is lacking factual evidence. President Bush did not lie about WMD's in Iraq. Evidence of WMD's has been found in Iraq. Also, given the time that Saddam's regime had to hide more of these weapons in Syria and Iran it is very likely that the information President Bush was given in early 2001 was accurate at the time.

I am not the biggest fan of President Bush right now, but for his lack of action on immigration policy and homeland security, but not for an opinion about whether or not he is telling all to the American public. Quite frankly, for reasons of national security, I don't believe that every citizen has a right to know everything.

I also honestly believe this country would have been alot better off if Clinton had just kept his mind on his job instead of his hands on every intern within reach. Maybe he would have taken the threats to this country more seriously and acted in the country's best interest if he wasn't such an immature boy playing at being president. Because of him, the US was and still is perceived as weak.

Answer 3

Pres.Bush did not lie about WMDs.......EVERY Intelligence Agency around the world said for a fact Saddam had WMDs.Kerry,both Clintons(in the 1990's and at the start of the Iraq war) and every-other Democrat ,who are now saying Bush lied,said Saddam had WMDs.Our military found WMDs in Iraq......but not the large quantities we expected.I imagine most of the Wmds are now in Syria and we will some day find them.If we don't......they will use them on us infidels.Clinton had a regime change policy for Iraq,he was too busy chasing interns and lack the leadership skills to carry out the plan.

Answer 4

Well our economy is the best now. Until President Bush came along, the nation was struggling economically & with our safety. That is the reason for a Republican win & we know the Trade Center bombing & planning of Twin Towers attack happened under the Clinton watch. Lying is not the wose thing a president can do - inattention wll get us all killed.
Clinton needed to spend more time making people mad & less time having affairs & smiling.

Answer 5

If Clinton had not lied, Bush would never have been President. In a way, it really is all Clinton's fault.

Answer 6

Clinton lied about a lot more than his affairs. And incidentally, lying about his affairs was under oath, which should be taken into consideration. It's just that his most famous lie (cheating on his wife) is the most well known. You can only conclude that all politicians are liars.

Answer 7

You will have to wait at least 20 years to know the effects of these two Presidents' policies.

Answer 8

I have yet to see irrefutible proof of Bush lying. The entire world saw irrefutible proof of Clinton's lie.

Answer 9

Clinton screwed an intern. Bush screwed the entire country.

One carries just a bit more weight than the other........

Answer 10

Bush's lie: (current)
Huge debt.
3000+ soldiers killed
--not disciplined

Clinton's lie: (past)
stained blue dress, dry cleaning cost $30
--disciplined through impeachment

There is a HUGE bias.