OK, time for me to chime in on my own thread. There have been some excellent points brought up already.
Paschendale says:
which is a good point. Other than that, Watergate was simply a coverup of a burglary that most likely did nothing at all to influence the election anyway. The president was impeached for covering it up to protect his supporters, which was a prime example of bad judgement on the part of the POTUS.
Compare that to the Lewinski affair, Clinton was not tried for failure to keep his pants zipped, but for lying under oath. How that is less impeachable than covering up a burglary, I'm not sure. Most likely, the general political climate was different during the Clinton era than during the political turmoil of Vietnam and Civil Rights.
Neither was particularly egregious, IMO, but removing the POTUS was/would have been justified in either case.
As for Bengazi, just what laws were broken? This one appears to me to have been a massive screw up on the part of bureaucrats who were below cabinet level positions. It's not half the big deal that it's being made out to be.
That could be wrong, of course. We don't have all of the facts yet.
Now, that brings us to Iran Contra, the selling of arms to the enemy (treason), and using the profits to subvert the will of Congress. In that one, the Constitutional separation of powers was at risk. Moreover, a burglary or perjury does not even come close to treason. It's like comparing shoplifting to armed robbery, a whole other level of wrongdoing.
Iran Contra is the biggest of the four scandals, no question.
IMHO, of course.
Lewinsky wasn't even the biggest one in that administration, let alone ever. Whitewater was a bigger faux pas than anything involving Monica.
Of the ones listed, Watergate was mostly publicity, and I'd go with Iran-Contra. I'm surprised that more "socialists" didn't come around and regurgitate pro-Allende/anti-Pinochet propaganda.
Watergate, Iran Contra, the Monica Lewinski affair, or the mess in Bengazi?
Why?
Oh.
By the time Ollie North and Co. got around to selling arms to Iran, the Shaw was gone, wasn't he? Wasn't Iran considered an enemy of the United States?
Watergate, Iran Contra, the Monica Lewinski affair, or the mess in Bengazi?
Why?
no one drowned at watergate
no one got blown up in Monicagate
Iran contra was a reaction to dems messing around with the president's turf in foreign policy
The Iran Contra Affair. Some of the convictions and indictments were pardoned by Reagan and the rest at the end of GW Bush Sr's time in office. No one was held accountable.
Oliver North would probably disagree with you about the "Nobody" part....
North was a nobody, comparatively speaking. The real criminal was Reagan.
no one drowned at watergate
no one got blown up in Monicagate
Iran contra was a reaction to dems messing around with the president's turf in foreign policy
Oliver North would probably disagree with you about the "Nobody" part....
Wait? So Congress does not determine funding? When did this happen?
North got off and is now a respected voice in the so called "conservative" community.
Yeah the darlings of the GOP, the ACLU, got his convictions vacated because his Congressional testimony for which he was granted immunity was used against him in his criminal trial. Lord forbid somebody defend the rights of a conservative white guy. He is respected moreso because of his military service and service to veterans than because of his politics. He, afterall, did not win a Senate seat in VA when VA was a red state. Nobody seriously pays attention to his politics.
Interesting how the ACLU is seen as a "liberal" organization, isn't it?
The stated mission of the ACLU is exactly what the mission of the government is supposed to be: To protect our Constitutional rights. If they've become a "liberal" organization, then there are two possibilities that come to mind:Probably moreso because they get tagged by the right with the work really being done by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but yes, though when pressed, the argument usually becomes something along the lines they used to be a good organization, but now they only represent the liberal agenda because they have been taken hostage by minorities and abortionists. I have to admit, I think their no religion anywhere near a public place doctrine damages their larger cause, but whatever, as I could give a tinker's darn about whether or not the 10 Commandments are displayed anywhere.
The stated mission of the ACLU is exactly what the mission of the government is supposed to be: To protect our Constitutional rights. If they've become a "liberal" organization, then there are two possibilities that come to mind:
Either they've strayed from t he original mission, or
What is seen as a liberal agenda is actually based on Constitutional rights.
We will just have to disagree about what constitutes a Constitutional Right. While not a strict constructionist per se, I err on the side of not using the commerce and now the tax provisions as to do whatever the hell the government wants to do because somebody just wants it to be that way.
Benghazi IF it turns out that the President knew his administration was misleading the American people.
Which, I think, at this point, is likely, but not proven.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?