When Clinton lied, no one died

[russ_watters]

"When Clinton lied, no one died"

By request, a debunking of this rhetorical-nonsensical bumper sticker. For clarity, the complete thought that it is meant to imply would read:

'When Clinton lied about sex, no one died as a result, but when Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq, 2000+ American soldiers and countless Iraqis died as a result'

There are several glaring problems with this bumper sticker:

First, yes, it is trivially obviously true that no one died as a result of Clinton's lie about sex - but so what? Is lying the key or is it the blood that matters? Clinton did cause the deaths of a great many people, so if that's the point of the bumper sticker (the deaths, not the lies), it misses its own point: Whether directly caused by a lie or just due to incompetence/failure to act shouldn't be relevant. Clinton's list is a healthy one. Off the top of my head: Somalia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan, Afghanistan, the Cole, Khobar towers, WTC 1, 9/11. I'm sure I missed some.

We can debate the depths of his screwups or compare body counts if you guys want, but the best example, to me, is probably Somalia. 18 soldiers and several thousand Somalians died as a result of a botched snatch-and-grab job. In the aftermath, the Secretary of Defense resigned because he personally denied a request for armor. But that was part of Clinton's policy on minimalistic warfare, and is absolutely his fault.

Though they aren't Americans (does that matter?), I consider the Rwanda thing worse. Upwards of a million people were hacked to death with machettes while military analysts figured we could have stopped it with 10,000 troops, in a matter of days. This failure to act (other countries hold some blame, but as always, we are the most capable of acting in that type of situation) was cited by numerous international investigations into the genocide. But even worse, many of those investigations concluded that mere international pressure could have had a big impact. Clinton failed to even denounce the genocide, or even label it as such, until long afterwards.

Obvious, but less important is the assumption on which the slogan is based: that Bush lied. Now the case for that is far from clear-cut, and while I have no desire to argue the case itself, I will say that it is irrelevant. What matters is whether we were right or wrong to go into Iraq - and no, even if it was based on a lie, that doesn't automatically make the actions wrong. Again, we can debate the right-ness or wrong-ness of the war till the cows come home, but that doesn't change the fact that the slogan is based on that logical fallacy (lie automatically equals wrong). I can hear the huffing already, but let me repeat that a little more directly: deception is not always wrong. And before you reply, stop and think about it: you already know that it's true. If not, search our philosophy forums for discussions about it before replying.

To sum-up:
"When Clinton lied, no one died" - is factually true, but logically flawed and pointless and therefore just mindless, useless rhetoric.

edit: Some may note that there are no links in this thread. The Somalia and Rwanda debacles are well-documented pieces of history and if people don't know what happened in those two incidents, you should be ashamed of yourself - but I'll provide some documentation if you need it.

 

[TRCSF]

Oh, Lord. Now that's stretching it.

Did you really think this through before posting it? Sure doesn't read like it.

Clinton lied about a BJ. It didn't hurt nobody in any way, shape, or form.

Bush lied because he wanted a war in Iraq and he was going to do anything to justify it for the American people. Because he wanted that war in Iraq, 2026 American troops and several hundred thousand innocent civilians died.

If you want to link to some documents showing how a BJ led to Somalia and Rwanda, be my guest. It couldn't hurt your credibility at this point.

 

[arildno]

Bill Clinton was in his perfect right to lie about a BJ, including lying to members of any jury. It was none of their business, and bringing this matter to a court of law was an utter disgrace of the US judicial system.

 

[Manchot]

Whether directly caused by a lie or just due to incompetence/failure to act shouldn't be relevant.

It seems to me that your argument is completely based on this premise. Nevertheless, it is relevant, and should be relevant. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between murder and manslaughter. Continuing this analogy further, the worst of Clinton's misdeeds would be involuntary manslaughter, while Bush's would be considered felony (or even first-degree) murder.

 

[Astronuc]

I agree with you Russ for the most part, particularly Somalia, Rwanda and Kosovo. (And I don't care much for bumper stickers like that anyway.)

However consider the first attack on the WTC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#1993_terrorist_attack

On February 26, 1993 at 12:17 PM, a Ryder truck filled with 1,500 pounds (682 kilograms) of explosives was planted by terrorists and detonated in the underground garage of the north tower, opening a 30m hole through 4 sublevels of concrete. Six people were killed and over a thousand injured.

-from Wiki. Clinton had been in office for 5 weeks (inauguration - January 20, 1993), so really the plot was in motion during the Bush I administration.

The 9/11 attack happened 8 months into the Bush II administration.

Certainly the Clinton administration blew it in uncovering the al Qaida plot, but then so did the Republican controlled Congress, which had its attention and efforts on undermining Clinton's presidency.

Bush the was focussed on Iraq and not al-Qaida. Had the US enforced the policy of no-one but flight personnel in the cockpit - which goes back to the domestic airline hijackings (skyjacking) of the 1960-70's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking) - the hijackings most likely would have failed. Had airport security been at the appropriate level (and properly regulated), the hijackers might have been stopped. The Republicans in Congress are notorious for de-regulation and less government - including where national security is a concern.

So I would put the failure to stop 9/11 on Clinton and Bush, and the Republican congress.

Clinton was sloppy on foreign policy, particularly use of military intervention, but George Bush is sloppier.

And BTW - the US borders are like Swiss Cheese - there are gaping holes if one knows where to look. But HS doesn't have the vision. :grumpy:

 

[russ_watters]

Did you really think this through before posting it? Sure doesn't read like it.

You sure you read it? Your response is just an echo of the thread title and doesn't address anything at all that I said!

If you want to link to some documents showing how a BJ led to Somalia and Rwanda, be my guest.

Oh dear lord! Please reread - I said nothing of the sort.

Bill Clinton was in his perfect right to lie...

Please note, that has nothing to do with my post, but just out of curiosity, what basis do you have for that? Is there basis for a right to lie about personal matters in the US Constitution, US law, western political theory, or western philosophy?

 

[arildno]

Bush&Blair lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and used that to spur the opinion towards war, completely ignoring the appeals of the UN inspectors not to go to war.

 

[russ_watters]

It seems to me that your argument is completely based on this premise. Nevertheless, it is relevant, and should be relevant. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between murder and manslaughter.

Continuing this analogy further, the worst of Clinton's misdeeds would be involuntary manslaughter, while Bush's would be considered felony (or even first-degree) murder.

Well, that's a stretch, but I think you're missing the point. The bumper-sticker is meant to imply:

Clinton=Good
Bush=Bad

In your analogy, both are bad, it's just a matter of degree - which is something I agree with, even if I disagree on who'se degree.

 

[Astronuc]

BTW - I think Clinton should have resigned after that lie, but also for the fact that he engaged in an inappropriate activity with an employee and subordinate for which he felt compelled to lie. And I won't cut him any slack for the technicality regarding 'relations'. He's a grown man, and he knew what he was being asked (even if he was an idiot in this regard).

Any business executive would have been asked to step down (at least I would hope so) for such conduct. One just doesn't do that.

 

[arildno]

Please note, that has nothing to do with my post, but just out of curiosity, what basis do you have for that? Is there basis for a right to lie about personal matters in the US Constitution, US law, western political theory, or western philosophy?

By choosing not to refuse participating in this degradation of the US judicial system, the jurors showed themselves to be morally corrupt individuals who ought to be kicked out of offices in which they do not belong.

 

[TRCSF]

Please note, that has nothing to do with my post, but just out of curiosity, what basis do you have for that? Is there basis for a right to lie about personal matters in the US Constitution, US law, western political theory, or western philosophy?

While I'm not arildno; I think he's perfectly correct in saying that it's perfectly fine to lie about one's own sexual habits.

It's nobody's business what goes on in the "bedroom." If I ask you if you're into kinky S&M watersports, and you lie about it, you're perfectly justified in lying about it. I shouldn't have been asking in the first place.

But you already knew that.

 

[arildno]

While I'm not arildno; I think he's perfectly correct in saying that it's perfectly fine to lie about one's own sexual habits.
It's nobody's business what goes on in the "bedroom." If I ask you if you're into kinky S&M watersports, and you lie about it, you're perfectly justified in lying about it. I shouldn't have been asking in the first place.
But you already knew that.

Besides, I sort of sympathize with Bill: To get a BJ from Hillary? Horror of horrors..:yuck:

 

[TRCSF]

Well, that's a stretch, but I think you're missing the point. The bumper-sticker is meant to imply:
Clinton=Good
Bush=Bad
In your analogy, both are bad, it's just a matter of degree - which is something I agree with, even if I disagree on who'se degree.

Actually, what the bumper sticker is directly implying that that Republicans are hypocrites. It's a direct take on the phony

"It's not about the sex, it's about the lying."

argument that Republicans so often used during the Lewinsky episode.

It does indirectly imply that Clinon was morally neutral while Bush was bad. Of course, that's an opinion based an a whole lot of evidence.

 

[russ_watters]

However consider the first attack on the WTC -

...So I would put the failure to stop 9/11 on Clinton and Bush, and the Republican congress.

I didn't specify in my little list, but for a great many incidents, the failures can absolutely be spread around. For lack of a better way, you could divide-up the death tolls between Presidents that had a hand in not preventing things. Not really relevant to my point, but worth clarifying.

BTW - I think Clinton should have resigned after that lie, but also for the fact that he engaged in an inappropriate activity with an employee and subordinate for which he felt compelled to lie. And I won't cut him any slack for the technicality regarding 'relations'. He's a grown man, and he knew what he was being asked (even if he was an idiot in this regard).

Any business executive would have been asked to step down (at least I would hope so) for such conduct. One just doesn't do that.

I'm a little more ambivalent about the adultery and misconduct in office things because one of the things about being President is that you make the rules for how your company (your administration) runs. While a private company has rules about sexual harassment and fraternization that go beyond the law, there isn't anything beyond the law that applies in government (and the laws get a little thin in some spots). Nevertheless, I agree that adultery and fraternization are wrong and I'm glad they are flat-out illegal under the UCMJ.

 

[russ_watters]

By choosing not to refuse participating in this degradation of the US judicial system, the jurors showed themselves to be morally corrupt individuals who ought to be kicked out of offices in which they do not belong.

Besides being gibberish (jurors? offices?), that doesn't answer the question: what is the basis for your stance? In a country ruled by the law, there needs to be a real reason to disregard the law. 'arildno thinks what goes on in the bedroom should be free from scrutiny' is not a logical/legitimate basis for an argument.

 

[arildno]

That doesn't answer the question: what is the basis for your stance? In a country ruled by the law, there needs to be a real reason to disregard the law.

They had no obligation whatsoever to ask those questions. The fact that they did, is the degradation of the judicial system.

Simply put, it is an abuse of power. Whether or not there exist laws to prevent that particular type of abuse, is irrelevant.

 

[MaxS]

russ that doesn't make any sense.. why would you support laws that mediate what people can and cannot do in their own personal lives?

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, what the bumper sticker is directly implying that that Republicans are hypocrites. It's a direct take on the phony
"It's not about the sex, it's about the lying."
argument that Republicans so often used during the Lewinsky episode.

Hmm. I hadn't considered that. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, though - it doesn't seem like a worthwhile point to make unless concurrently it is meant to be a reason not to vote for (or to impeach) Bush.

 

[TRCSF]

Now to address the actual incidents:

1. Somalia. Actually, it was Bush Sr. that got us into Somalia. Not that I fault Bush Sr. either. Unlike Iraq, we actually had a noble reason for being in Somalia. I assume you're referring to the "Black Hawk Down" incident. Since it was basically a small unit action, I fail to see what it has to do with the Commander-in-Chief. Especially there are "Black Hawk Down" type screw ups occurring on a regular basis in Iraq.

2. Iraq. I assume you mean the cruise missle attacks. These just illustrate why Clinton was better than Bush. When Saddam didn't let weapons inspectors into buildings, Clinton just blew up the buildings in the middle of the night with minimal loss of human lives. Saddam couldn't hide anything, so he started letting inspectors back in everywhere.

3. Yugoslavia. Another illustration of Clinton's competence over Bush. The U.S., with support from NATO and the U.N. actually stopped genocide and with minimal loss to human life. They also overthrew the bloodthirsty dictator responsible. They didn't require a full scale invasion to do it, they didn't immediately set to work at taking Yugoslavia's natural resources, they didn't award billion dollar no-bid contracts to the military contractor that Al Gore owned a lot of stock in, they didn't stick around for years after as 2,026 US troops got killed.

4. Rwanda- I'll agree, this was Clinton's biggest failure. He admits it was his biggest failure.

That said, I'm sure that if Clinton had gone into Rwanda the Republicans would have been furious about it. If 18 US troops had lost their lives to save thousands of African lives they'd still be carping on it as if it was some kind of failure.

How do I know? Look at the Sudan. Rwanda is essentially repeating itself and Bush doesn't raise a finger.

5. Sudan. I assume you mean the bombing of the pharmaceutical factory. It was a CIA screw up. It's actually a good example of bad analytical chemistry. The CIA told Clinton that Saddam was in cahoots with a WMD factory, intending to harm American lives- so Clinton went after them. Unlike Bush, Clinton actually read intelligence reports about bin Laden and followed up on them. Unlike Bush, Clinton actually tried to get bin Laden. The Republicans at the time, if you remember, thought that bin Laden wasn't a real threat and criticised Clinton for going after him.

6. Afghanistan. What about it? Afghanistan was never an issue.

7. The Cole. Khobar Towers. What about them? Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. Clinton went after them. Republicans criticized Clinton for going after them; they said Clinton exaggerated the threat.

8. WTC 1. What about it? What should Clinton have done differently?

9. 9-11. Happened under Bush II's watch.

 

[wasteofo2]

A bumper sticker?

You started a whole detailed thing about a stupid bumper sticker?

Did someone like write that on your car with shaving cream last night, or was this just totally random?

 

[Manchot]

Well, that's a stretch, but I think you're missing the point. The bumper-sticker is meant to imply:

Clinton=Good
Bush=Bad

First of all, how exactly was my argument a stretch? Secondly, the bumper sticker only implies that Bush's lie is worse than Clinton's lie. It says nothing about Clinton being good: only that he is better (just as involuntary manslaughter is better than felony murder).

 

[TRCSF]

Besides being gibberish (jurors? offices?), that doesn't answer the question: what is the basis for your stance? In a country ruled by the law, there needs to be a real reason to disregard the law. 'arildno thinks what goes on in the bedroom should be free from scrutiny' is not a logical/legitimate basis for an argument.

The basis of the stance is that it's immoral to get involved in somebody else's sex life. That's such a basic, obvious point that nobody bothers to include it in a "Western Philosophy" textbook, or wherever it is you hope to find it.

If you're looking for a legal reason- it's only perjury if it's a question directly related to the case. If it's not directly related to the case, it's not perjury to lie about something, that's the law. Furthermore, in civil cases it's one person's word against the other; perjury and telling something that is not the truth are, by law, not necessarily the same thing.

Is this really just sour grapes because somebody from the Bush WH got indicted for perjury but Clinton never did?

 

[russ_watters]

russ that doesn't make any sense.. why would you support laws that mediate what people can and cannot do in their own personal lives?

Huh? First off, this isn't about actions, it is about words. Adultery is not illegal (caveat below), but perjury is. I think both you and arildno are missing that.

Second, we have all sorts of laws that regulate what we can and can't do in our personal lives - especially for when those actions affect others. I absolutely support many of those laws, and I suspect you do as well.

They had no obligation whatsoever to ask those questions. The fact that they did, is the degradation of the judicial system.

Simply put, it is an abuse of power. Whether or not there exist laws to prevent that particular type of abuse, is irrelevant.

In your opinion. I ask again: what is the basis for that opinion?

Do you guys not see how harmful what you are suggesting could be? Rape, incest, child abuse, drug abuse (heck - speeding!) - these are all crimes based on actions people take in their personal lives. Do you guys honestly not see that making it legal to lie about personal actions (again - please provide at least a philosophical basis for that assertion) would be a really, really bad thing?

Perhaps you guys are looking at this from the "victimless crime" angle ('if it doesn't hurt anyone but me, it shouldn't be illegal'). Can you seriously not think of any victim in adultery?

 

[TRCSF]

They had no obligation whatsoever to ask those questions. The fact that they did, is the degradation of the judicial system.
Simply put, it is an abuse of power. Whether or not there exist laws to prevent that particular type of abuse, is irrelevant.

One could make an argument of entrapment.

 

[arildno]

You are the one dealing in insidious, dangerous rhetoric here. There never were any indications of Clinton committing a rape, but you choose to put a voluntary BJ into the same bracket as rape and call it "personal matters". Then you demand that "personal matters" should be investigated because your "personal matters" bracket includes rape.

 

[TRCSF]

Hmm. I hadn't considered that. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, though - it doesn't seem like a worthwhile point to make unless concurrently it is meant to be a reason not to vote for (or to impeach) Bush.

Really? I think it's rather making the argument FOR impeachment.

Sure, what the founding fathers meant by "high crimes and misdemeanors", but I personally think that falsifying evidence in order to get involved in a senseless war that gets thousands of people killed and weakens the country in order to reap personal profit via no-bid military contracts is certainly something they would have frowned upon.

 

[Informal Logic]

Is there basis for a right to lie about personal matters in the US Constitution, US law, western political theory, or western philosophy?

I seem to recall a thread in which conservatives argued that there are times when it is okay to lie--for the greater good--remember? I guess it does not suit your purpose now. It is all the more ridiculous when the lie is about a personal matter that is no one’s business.

As for the rest of the OP, here is a slogan: Would of, could of, should of. Are we going to go through each presidency and analyze every incidence (e.g., Granada?) and criticize when they should have intervened and when they should not? And then when we are done, I suppose by your logic it will vindicate the Bush regime for the deaths caused by their illegal invasion? Riiiight.

 

[russ_watters]

The basis of the stance is that it's immoral to get involved in somebody else's sex life. That's such a basic, obvious point that nobody bothers to include it in a "Western Philosophy" textbook, or wherever it is you hope to find it.

Ok, fine: let's say, for example, I have a particular sexual interest in 8 year old boys. Is pursuing that interest a basic and obvious freedom that I should have?

And contrary to your assertion, everything in the law has/has to have a philosophical basis. If someone decides they want to pass The TRCSF/ arildno Act, and someone asks you why, you can't just say "'cause I said so" if you want it to be passed (and not struck down).

Is this really just sour grapes because somebody from the Bush WH got indicted for perjury but Clinton never did?

No. As a matter of fact, I'd prefer to get of this Clinton-sex thing, it isn't really relevant my point: my point in this thread is that Clinton killed people, so implying that he didn't is, at best, political rhetoric.

 

[russ_watters]

You are the one dealing in insidious, dangerous rhetoric here. There never were any indications of Clinton committing a rape, but you choose to put a voluntary BJ into the same bracket as rape and call it "personal matters". Then you demand that "personal matters" should be investigated because your "personal matters" bracket includes rape.

arildno, you made a broad, sweeping assertion and I am challenging it. Are you now saying that there are limits to that assertion?

Specify those limits. Again, this goes back to the basis for your argument. You must have a logical/philosophical basis for your argument!

 

[russ_watters]

Really? I think it's rather making the argument FOR impeachment.

How would me or Joe Redstate being a hypocrite mean Bush should be impeached?

 

[russ_watters]

I seem to recall a thread in which conservatives argued that there are times when it is okay to lie--for the greater good--remember? I guess it does not suit your purpose now.

I suspect you didn't finish reading my opening post - that is addressed. Please reread.

 

[edward]

I'd prefer to get of this Clinton-sex thing, it isn't really relevant my point: my point in this thread is that Clinton killed people, so implying that he didn't is, at best, political rhetoric.

I would prefrer you would get off the Clinton thing too. It only obscures the present.
There have been genocide and slaughter in Sudan and Darfur during the Bush presidency and what did he do? He even opposed sanctions, like sanctions against Sudan would have changed anything.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9622

Congress wants to act on Darfur, but the Bush administration is dead set against that.

 

[arildno]

What "broad&sweeping" assertion did I make?
You are the one obfuscating the matter by lumping together criminal acts with a voluntary BJ.

 

[Informal Logic]

What "broad&sweeping" assertion did I make?
You are the one obfuscating the matter by lumping together criminal acts with a voluntary BJ.

Precisely.

...the lie is about a personal matter that is no one’s business.

= consenting adults = no harm = not illegal. The examples are not of this description.

 

[arildno]

Besides being gibberish (jurors? offices?), that doesn't answer the question: what is the basis for your stance? In a country ruled by the law, there needs to be a real reason to disregard the law. 'arildno thinks what goes on in the bedroom should be free from scrutiny' is not a logical/legitimate basis for an argument.

1. Well, I thought "juror" was the name for a member of a jury.
2. From what I know, "office" may be used in English not only to designate a work-place, but also to designate the job itself (as in "to hold an office").
3. Disregard the law?
What law states that a court is empowered to demand answers concerning perfectly legal actions that have no bearing or relevance to criminal acts?