Do you Think it is Worse to Lie a Country Into War than Getting Head In the Oval Office?

Question

Okay Obama is a con man!, Who is Stupid?

Answer 1

If it's from Monica, I think the second choice is worse (shows a real lack of good judgment and lack of good taste).

Answer 2

War is always easy for those who have something to gain and nothing to loose. Only when they endure the personal pain and suffering of it, the personal cost in life, limb or pocket do they see the true picture. You can rationalize a wrong all you want, but Bush & Cheney went in claiming there was a eminent threat of WMD. Bush and Cheney didn't lie under oath because they were allowed not to. Bush had 8 months to "fix" what ever he felt was wrong with the military before 9/11 yet our troops 3 yrs. after were fighting with "the army they  had" by Rumsfeld. You can put it on the Richter scale of harm however it is still a lie. Personally someone lying to me to spare feelings, save face or avoid embarrassment (even under oath) is a lot less a lie than one that creates pain, suffering, loss of life and cost to the many while fattening the wallets of the few. It is inexcusable and unforgivable.

Answer 3

Obviously that depends upon whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. Republicans think s*x is bad, Democrats think war is bad. Go figure.  

Answer 4

I would think that it's worse to lie to the officials when giving a sworn statement.  Lest we forget, the "Depends on what your definition of is...is" statement was done under oath and punishable under law as perjury.  Which if you might recall, was the reason Clinton was impeached.

Note: Impeached just means charges were brought against the president.  It does not mean that they were removed from office.  

Answer 5

Um..I don't know.

Answer 6

Alright, here comes one of my classic "it depends" answers...

The belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction derived from intelligence collected during the Clinton administration.  The same intelligence was collected by other nations, such as the UK, I believe.  The "Peace Dividend," or the savings derived from the end of the Cold War resulted in a significant reduction in the budget of CIA, therefore, resources (especially human intelligence, or spys in Iraq) had not yet been restored to the point of being able to verify the existence or non-existence of WMD's.

Did W know that there were no WMD's?  I'm not sure, but certainly the evidence against him would not stand up to the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" criteria, at least not back in 2003.  So what's worse - going to war with good intentions, but bad info, or believing that there was a threat to the U.S. and doing nothing about it?

I have no problem with Clinton having an affair, my problem is that he committed a felony afterwards.  By lying under oath, he committed perjury.  If you don't prosecute the President, the highest law enforcement official in the US for perjury, how can you justify prosecuting anyone else?

Answer 7

Either way, life is cheap and cheapened in the bourgeois. Don't forget the Rwanda genicide and Osama bin Ladin was already in business.

Answer 8

Yes, I do.

Answer 9

Obvious answer.

2pts before you get deleted!  Weeee!