Quote:
Originally posted by Iron Steve
I will criticize his perjury, in both depositions and in a motion that was placed before a federal judge, for what it was until the end of my life. It's crime. It's also indicative of character. If you will commit a crime (whatever your arguably justifiable personal motives or however inconsequential some may argue it is) I think that speaks to your character and I think for the office of President the American people should debate what type of character that they want in that person. While I don't care about the sex thing as a sex act, for many people for good reason that is also a character issue and again I think its relevant. Some would argue, with merit, that the propensity to commit infidelity is relevant to how one might honor other oaths that one might make. Also, the fact that he was a complete dumbshit about the Lewinsky affair, speaks to his judgment. I would bet Clinton screwed dozens of women while in office, but I would also bet the supermajority of those incidents did not take place with a 20 yo intern in the workplace. Lousy judgment. What does that say about his common sense and how he might engage himself in other areas where his judgment is called for? (such as judging whether or not pushing a mideast peace treaty at the end of his term for his own legacy purposes might be detrimental to the continued existence of Israel).
Going back to the topic, Clinton was the President. He was elected to be a leader, not follow the public opinion polls or base his actions on what the VRWC might say. Lead. He had two obvious chances after the first WTC boimbing to get or take out bin laden. In one, he refused to take custody of him, in the other he shot a camel in the ass. He failed us. Bush had 8 months to make up for what Clinton couldn't do in 8 years. I think your criticism is misplaced.
|
So then Bush's lies about WMD are okay because he wasn't under oath? Is it only a character issue of there's litigation involved? Or is deliberate mischaracterization by the Nation's leader in order to serve his agenda acceptable to you?
This sounds a lot like moral relativism to me.
