OK HeatherRob here is your chance to Clinton bash.
Ranks the following scandals in terms of the severity of the criminal behavior involved.

Watergate
Iran-Contra Scandal
Whitewater-Lewinsky

My response.

1. Watergate A sitting president used his powers to tamper with the electoral process by sabotaging democratic hopefuls (i.e. Muskie) and using illegal surveillance of the Democratic National Headquarters. Furthermore the investigation into the break in at the Watergate Hotel revealed a pattern of such behavior to benefit the political situation of Richard Nixon.

2. Iran Contra Scandal The president of the United States sold weapons to our enemy without proper authority (Iran) and used that money to fund military activity that had been rejected by Congress. 1. Giving weapons to our enemy. 2. Subverting the will of Congress

3. Whitewater-Lewinsky A sitting president lost money years ago on a shady land development deal. An open investigation pored over his adulterous past and found that he had received oral sex from an average looking intern. When asked if he had an affair he lied.

Great topic. I would concur with Watergate being the highmark for scandal and corruption. Nixon was a poor president in my opinion. He beat the Democrats over Vietnam, then when elected he still took another 4 years to end the war. After that we diverge greatly. I don't consider Whitewater or Lewinsky earth shaking scandals. They just add to the sum total that Clinton was a sleazeball that illustrated the cesspool that politics has become, when a low life like him is elected to President. The IranContra affair was a democrat attempt to make the Reagan administration look bad. Let's look at what exactly was done. We sold arms to Iran, to get our hostages released, and they were released, sounds like that worked. The money from the arms sales went to fund the anti-marxist contra rebels in Nicaragua. The communists led by Daniel Ortega destroyed that country. But thanks to our help the contras eventually defeated the Ortega led marxists. Sounds like a brilliant plan worked. Tip O'Neil and his do nothing colleagues could only dream about such a plan. If the democrats spent more time thinking of ways to help democracy instead of back room dealings and mob vote buy offs, maybe they could have had such a success, but alas no.

It seems to me that it is not only interesting to look at the scandals themselves....but to also analyze the response to the scandals.

When it became obvious that Nixon was probably guilty of various nefarious deeds, the Republican leadership sent two or three high ranking Senators who told him that they could not support him or his actions and advised him to resign.

The response of the Democrat party upon the impeachment for Clinton's scandals was the opposite - to publicly and loudly support him no matter what.

It is not that the Monica scandal was less important than either Watergate or Iran/Contra. It's what Clinton did about it. The overriding fact was that Clinton lied under oath - that was the true crime. As president he was the chief law enforcement official in the country, sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution (i.e. the laws of the land). For such an official to lie under oath undermines the entire judicial system as we know it.

That was his crime, not so much the sleeze of actually the act of what he did with Monica. There were many democrats who deplored his action and his lying, Feinstein was one, John Kerry for another. But when push came to shove they supported a president who lied under oath.

So the list above should read:

Watergate
Iran-Contra Scandal
Whitewater-Lewinsky
Lying Under Oath

Then why do the deal in secret. If we were so proud about negotiating with terrorists then why didn't we do it openly. I think it would probably be because our policy is not to negotiate with terrorists so that they can not expect to be rewarded for their activity.

As to subverting the will of congress by secretly funding what had been publicly denied to the Reagan administration, this is definitely ends justifies the means logic with which I do not agree.

I am also unsure that our presence in Central America had a wholly positive effect on the region or on our reputation in the region.

Watergate was worse
Iran-Contra
Whitewater

Basheva: Unless it was a typo, please refrain from using "Democrat party". The correct usage is "Democratic party" or "the Democrats". "Democrat party" was persistently used by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his minions as a pejorative: you may wish to associate yourself with that good man, but I, for one, consider the usage inflammatory. Thanks in advance for your restraint.



As we're looking at one set of scandals per president and, as George W Bush swore a false affadavit in the SCI case, I assume that you mean the new list to read as follows:

Watergate : Nixon
Iran-Contra Scandal : Reagan/Bush I
Whitewater-Lewinsky : Clinton
Lying Under Oath : Bush II

During the Iran-Contra Trials, didn't Reagan seem "out of it"?

Could this have been the begin of his alzhiemers?

Wertz - I really don't know how to reply to you.

It was not inflammatory, it was not a typo, it was not a pejorative, I am not a McCarthy minion, it was the way my parents - who were life-long democrats always referred to the party they supported.

...............................

I consider lying under oath to be a very serious matter as it undermines the legal system. It denied Paula Jones her day in court - no matter what one might think of Paula Jones or her suit. As a citiizen she is entitled to bring suit, entitled to subpoena witnesses, and entitled to put them under oath. And the law expects the witness to tell the truth.

Nixon got his just desserts and his party deserted him, as it should have. Clinton was suported by his party no matter what. I find that disturbing.

I was wondering why Clinton was being suppoirted by the Democrats...i'd jump ship from a scandel like that

Did they immigrate to the country post-McCarthy era? Was English their first language? I don't mean to pry (or to raise the whole hyphenated-American issue!), it's just I cannot otherwise account for their using what most Democrats would consider "the language of the enemy". You need not post an answer if the qustions are too invasive - I'm mostly just curious.


I would agree. So why is Clinton's perjury a persistent topic of debate - here and just about everywhere else - while George W Bush's perjury is all but unknown to most people? Must be that "liberal media" at work again...


I wouldn't necessarily consider a full presidential pardon "desertion". It's way more than Clinton got - and for far more serious crimes.

I guess my problem is I don't see my fellow citizens as 'the enemy' - in quotes or not. Having a different view does not make them enemies. I would rather discuss the issues at hand than confront the person discussing the issue.

And, if you notice I try to never use disrespectful labels such as 'moron' or 'Bush the lesser' to describe anyone. I think it's more effective to discuss the action the person committed - or the policies the person espoused - name calling doesn't further discussion, in my opinion. Now, I may have failed in this upon occasion but my intention is to refrain from such action.

My aim is to discuss the issue/action/policy within the bounds of respectful discourse to both the person being discussed as well as the poster I may be responding to.



You are right, I am unaware of this - why don't you inform me?

Basheva: As we're still discussing scandal, though not the ones originally introduced, I'm not sure if this is off-topic or not...

Bush's perjury is touched upon in the Pathological-Liar-in-Chief thread, but there's a bit more background here and here - with a timeline of events here. I believe the Texas Observer ran a few items on the affair as well.

Briefly, attorneys for Eliza May, the former executive director of the Texas Funeral Service Commission, filed a motion asking a state court to find (then Governor) Bush in contempt for not telling the truth about his interactions with officials from Service Corporation International, the world's largest funeral company. SCI has been fighting an investigation by the Commission, which recommended the company be fined $445,000 for violating a casketload of state regulations. In March, 1999, May filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the state, SCI, and SCI's C.E.O., Robert Waltrip, claiming that the company and state officials worked together to thwart her agency's investigation into the company. The contempt motion spotlights Bush's sworn affidavit in which he said he "had no conversations with SCI officials, agents or representatives" about the state's investigation. The affidavit was filed by Attorney General John Cornyn, along with a motion to quash a subpoena issued to Bush by May's attorneys. Since the affidavit was filed, Bush's flat denial of a conversation has been contradicted several times: by Waltrip, by Bush's assistant Joe Albaugh, and even by Bush himself. Lying in a sworn affidavit it not merely contempt, it is perjury.

Thank you for the information - was Bush indicted? Were charges filed? Was suit brought and charges confirmed? (This is not a challenge - it is a request for information).

In Clinton's case I believe the Supreme Court of Arkansas did confirm the allegations of perjury and a penalty was invoked.



This is a thread I have never read - and I have to be honest and tell you why. I find the title defamatory. It doesn't matter about whom it is - Clinton - Bush - John Doe - I don't think that inflammatory titles (or words for that matter) lend themselves to civil discussion. One can be passionate, but still amiable.

It's my problem, I know

Ms. May's case was conveniently settled out of court (sound familiar?). No charges were ever brought against the Governor.

The rest of your posting, Basheva, I have addressed in a new thread...