|
TreasureKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/12/2009 11:31:31 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
... what i'm suggesting is that lying is always bad, however lying under oath is bad and illegal. Nothing more.
I'm afraid that is not what I understood from your comment, "Clinton clearly lied....but after the investigation started, not before". To me, it sounded as if you believed that the timing of Clinton's lie somehow ameliorated the severity of his transgression from perjury to "fib".
Where I believe the greatest difference between Clinton being investigated for his actions versus Bush being investigated for his actions, lies with just how those actions came about.
President Clinton made a conscious and personal decision to lie under oath in order to protect himself (his marriage, his reputation, and his political career) from prosecution and punishment (albeit civil) for possible wrong doings that he had been accused of, not in the performance of his official duties as Governor, but acting as an individual and for his own personal gain. At the time he perjured himself, he was not acting in his capacity as President of the United States... he was acting as an individual for his own benefit.
As soon as these actions came into question an investigation was begun.
While I certainly cannot claim to understand just exactly what some people believe that President Bush did that was illegal (I'm sure there are several here on CM who could give specifics), I do understand that the actions taken by Bush were done so, not for his own personal benefit, but for what he believed to be the best course of action in governing and protecting this country.
"In the immediate aftermath of the attacks (on September 11th), the Bush administration announced a war on terrorism, with the stated goals of bringing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice and preventing the emergence of other terrorist networks. These goals would be accomplished by means including economic and military sanctions against states perceived as harboring terrorists and increasing global surveillance and intelligence sharing. U.S. officials speculated on possible involvement of Saddam Hussein immediately afterwards. Although these suspicions were unfounded, the association contributed to public acceptance for the 2003 invasion of Iraq."
At a time when emotions were running on high and demands for action were being made, Bush sought information and advice from all the sources available to him in order to determine the best course of action. While not every individual was pleased with the actions that were decided, those actions were approved of and financed by a clear majority of the elected representatives of the citizens of the United States.
Even after questions arose with regard to the validity of the initial information on which those decisions were based, inquiries and debate continued to result in support for the course of actions.
To me, the difference is crystal clear. Any investigation at this late date smacks of political retribution... something that this country doesn't need right now. Even President Obama is reluctant to take that course.
|
|
|
|
