Twisted Morality?

Question

Whenever a negative comment is made about Bush, the invasion of Iraq, and all the dead and wounded American soldiers, Cons come back with, "Clinton got a BJ in the Oval Office". Is this some sort of twisted morality to put these two issues on the same level of importance?

Erinyes - you're not annoying anyone, just making yourselves look stupid.

Pythagoras - That answer is the definition of "lame".

Kathy and Ruth - you two need to pay more attention then.

Answer 1

No they are not on the same level. The fact that Clinton got a bj in the oval office was a personal choice that didn't affect anyone besides the participants and his wife and family. When he lied under oath in a court of law, then it became a choice that affected the country and our constitution. No one is above the law. When you take an oath in a court of law, you are sworn to tell the truth, even if you are the president and even if it might cause you embarrassment.

What Bush has done is much worse. He declared was unilaterally and invaded another country (Iraq) that had not attacked the United States or our national interests. He has disregarded the Geneva convention and authorized torture. he has denied the writ of habeus corpus that dates back to the Magna Carta. He based staffing decision in the Justice Department on political loyalty and willingness to prosecute enemies, not competence of the attorney or fairness in administering justice.

The unfortunate thing is that because the Democrats were not honest in their judgement of Clinton and were political loyalists defending his right to lie and corrupt our court system, now when we have a really corrupt President who does deserve to be impeached, the lack the moral authority to do so. Now they just look like spoiled kids who lost their power and are trying to get even with the people who picked on them.

Answer 2

The two issues are NOT on the same level of importance and they know that. But they will stress the fact that Clinton lied under oath. Well so did Bush, when he took his 1st oath of office. He has not done what is in the best interest of this country!

What burns me up more then anything is the way the Con's spent all of this time and taxpayer money to try and oust Clinton for something he did in his personal life. Presidents since George Washington have had mistresses. And come to find out, Newt G. of all people was already having an affair when he charged Clinton. What a bunch of hypocrites!

Also, the Con's today complain about Clinton not handling terrorist issues correctly, well how COULD he do his job with impeachment charges against him and having to testity in court.

I truly think this is the point the two parties started to divide more then ever and now can't agree on anything. The Con's did a great job dividing the country with this ridiculous waste of time and money. Also, what a selfish stupid move on the Con's part to take the President away from handling more important matters this country was facing.

Maybe the real reason they impeached CLinton for sex, was because the Con's didn't like that his sex was with a woman!

Answer 3

Well, since all Cons (in fact most Cons) do not use that comeback to such questions, your question is twisted and impossible to answer since it is based on a false statement.

Edit: I see you have not been here more than a month. While I recognize you may be one of those guys that keeps setting up new accounts, I have to go by what you show yourself to be. I'm a level 7 and no stranger to YA.

Apparently, your observations are supposed to carry more weight than mine....Not! Unless you have any hard evidence to the contrary, my observations are just as valid as yours...more so actually...given your beginner status. LOL!

Answer 4

Ask yourself this question;

"How does Bush personally benefit from sending soldiers to Iraq?"

He's already rich. Does he get money from Hummer for sending all those Humvees over? Is Haliburton personally cutting him a check? Is he on the board of directors at Raythoen? To the best of my knowledge, he is not being paid by any of these companies to be in Iraq. If someone can find proof otherwise, then I welcome his prosecution if it was illegal.

As much as you may disagree with his policy, and as an American, it is your right to do so, he may send troops to Iraq because he actually believes its the best thing to do for the country. In my opinion, he has done a poor job articulating this point. He should have been Guiliani-esque and be at every single funeral he can attend. He should be on TV every night portraying them as heroes. Etc, etc.

On the other hand, Clinton dragged a nation into impeachment proceedings because of his own selfish interests. Who else gained from his BJ except for him? It was the act of a selfish man who put himself above all others. Maybe no one died from it, but is that the basis for morality? If no one dies, then its moral?

Answer 5

You won't here it from me, I voted for Clinton in his second term. The lowest deaths recorded in the military since 1950 were during his term. His attention to safety requirements and several increased funding issues helped us greatly. Incidently we lost over 9,000 soldiers due to accidents during only four years of Carters Admin. due to cut backs with having to maintain the same mission. It will take these wars with two fronts and a third term President to make that mark. President Clinton, President Reagan, and President Bush have provided us the opportunity to do our job safely.

Answer 6

Is this what it's come to? 'Progressives' asking nothing but insulting, moronic and unsubstantiated questions? I know that there are some conservatives who play this same game too, but geez, it seems as though this is all we EVER get from 'progressives' who claim to hold the corner on intellectual superiority.

Hey, if you guys are genuinely superior in any way, why don't you start showing it and try adding something to the conversation rather than simply making pathetically lame attempts at getting attention?

Answer 7

Psychologically, this is called "rationalizing", which is the coming up with ways of illogical thinking that make an attempt to defend even the most horrible of actions.

A common example can be found in rape cases, the rapist will often say "She asked for it."

Answer 8

Twisted indeed. The cons care more about whether someone gets a BJ than the lives of our troops.

I wouldn't call it a twisted morality, though--rather, a complete lack of morality--and of patriotism.

Answer 9

It's all they've got. Let's face it, Mr. Bush has earned those negative comments. Personally, I don't care that Mr. Clinton had a bj in office. I DO care that we're in a war that has no sight in end.

Answer 10

Bush is trying his best, he just can not help it he is incompetent. We should all hope that the he does nothing for 12 months.