2007-12-26 12:46:08 · 23 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Massive Mann (below) Good point. How about both (scandals and/or crimes).
PS {Hand seems swollen from slapping hands with you in the previous post. Ouch}
2007-12-26 12:52:09 · update #1
hdean45 (below) They have placed Rove in contempt of Congress the last I heard. They are subpeoning Cheney's files (then a fire broke out. Hmmmm)
2007-12-26 12:54:31 · update #2
psatm (below) Forest for the trees...
2007-12-26 13:06:54 · update #3
In my opinion the one that has cost more human lives is the worse! But since i don't know how many people died as results of the Watergate, Iran/Contra or Monica, i leave it at that ?!
Best Regards.
2007-12-26 16:56:50 · answer #1 · answered by iceman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Watergate caused a President to resign - has to be that. Iran/Contra made a ripple for a while but wasn't all that big. Monica was just sound bites that embarrassed (at least publicly) a President but had no ill affect as there was nothing illegal about the relationship and was used mainly as an excuse to help President Clinton keep his popularity in light of his 21 indictments on crime (the least worse). The GW Bush things are also mostly hyperbole as no laws were broken and they were based on precedents.
2007-12-26 21:05:39 · answer #2 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Watergate was the worst scandal because it caused the President to resign. Note that "gate" is now a part of the language as a suffix denoting a serious scandal
Watergate was a serious crime. Iran / Contra was a heinous crime too (King Charles I was beheaded for less), but Reagan was so popular they couldn't impeach. Lying under oath about your sex life is a crime, though less so than breaking into the oppositions' headquarters or illegally trafficking in arms (IMHO). The Bush-gates are unlikely to go as far as any of the above, though he has certainly lied about a lot more than his sex-life.
Sort of bad when you have to rate your Presidents by how bad their crimes were.
2007-12-26 20:58:25 · answer #3 · answered by BruceN 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
What do you mean my 'worse'? If you're counting in human lives lost, certainly GW Bush gates beats them all. If you're talking about pure scandal, then Watergate or Monica would win.
I would be more specific in the question.
2007-12-26 21:02:26 · answer #4 · answered by psatm 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
How was Iran/Contra scandal? They used alternate means to fund the Contras, by selling arms to Iran. All because the dems wouldn't allow us to help the Contras fight the communists.
What's so bad about that? We sell outdated weapons to Iran, so they and Iraq would destroy each other. Then using that money to fund the Contras combat the spread of communism. Sounds like a win win situation to me.
2007-12-26 21:16:22 · answer #5 · answered by Adolf Schmichael 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well. there is no doubt who the King of Scandals was anyway. Big Pimp Daddy Bill wins hands down for volume alone!
Whitewater
Cattlegate
Nannygate
Helicoptergate
Travelgate
Gennifer Flowersgate
Filegate
Vince Fostergate
I wonder where those Whitewater billing records came fromgate
Paula Jonesgate
Federal Building campaign phone callgate
Lincoln bedroomgate
White House coffeegate
Donations from convicted drug and weapons dealersgate
Buddhist Templegate
Web Hubbell hush moneygate
Lippogate
Chinese commiegate - Clinton was practically endorsed by red China Update!
Let's blame Kenneth Starrgate
Zippergate/interngate - the Lewinsky affair itself
Perjury and jobs for Lewinskygate - the aftermath
Willeygate
Web Hubbell prison phone callgate
Selling Military Technology to the Chinese Commiesgate
Coverup for our Russian Comrades as Wellgate
Wag-the-Dog-gate
Jaunita Broaddrick gate
PBS-gate
Email-gate
Vandalgate
Lootergate
Pardongate
2007-12-26 21:07:59 · answer #6 · answered by booman17 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Watergate was a felony masterminded by Nixon and his underlings. Since Iran has been considered an enemy nation since the 1979 hostage crisis, selling arms to them, by definition, is treason. To the person who said Bush was in office five minutes when 9-11 happened, WHAT PLANET ARE YOU LIVING ON? He became president in January, which if you can do your math, is nearly EIGHT months. I hear this same load of BS from the same people who blame Clinton for the 1993 WTC bombing even though he had only been in office for about three weeks. Elle C.-typical neocon response. You're wrong and you can't accept it so you resort to name calling! I'll say this again slowly so maybe you can understand- I'll bet you hold Clinton responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing even though he was in office for about three weeks. So who was in office before that? I believe it was Reagan and Bush, Sr. for twelve years!!! I bet you don't hold them responsible in any way for that do you?
2007-12-26 23:52:59 · answer #7 · answered by Tom C 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
to be very serious and truthful...
The Watergate scandal led to the resignation of a president...the first in history!!
The actual impeachment of a President is a dire consequence..although it did not lead to A resignation..which it probably should!
2007-12-27 04:10:04 · answer #8 · answered by frank6199@sbcglobal.net 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Monica Scandal - Because it was the easiest to resolve and the biggest waste of time.
Myles D - Bush was in office about 5 minutes when 911 happened. And yet you blame him for doing nothing with previous warnings??
CLINTON KNEW FOR YEARS!! AND URGENTLY SO!! YET HE WOULD RATHER TIE UP OUR GOVERNMENT AND WASTE TAX PAYERS $$ THAN FESS UP TO BEING A CHUBBY CHASER!!
TOM C - CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE FOR 8 YEARS!!
PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR >>>!!
2007-12-26 21:17:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
It be nice to know the contents of Sandy Berger's pilfering; in fact it is outright vital in order to accurately scale the various gates and/or scandals.
2007-12-26 21:01:08 · answer #10 · answered by Doctor DNC 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋