Maureen O'Dowd, whose writing style I find difficult to read and whose opinions I always disagree with has a particularly Bush-hating entry in the Sunday Times.
Bill Clinton comes out and admits that he had his fling with Monica Lewinsky "because he could", the ultimate abuse of power. Then O'Dowd compares that to the War in Iraq. Actually, she determines that Bush's abuse of power is worse because of the Body Count.
Pardon me Ms. O'Dowd, but the Clinton body count is 3,000+ Americans who died while Clinton failed to respond with force after the first WTC bombing, the African embassies, the USS Cole attack, etc. I guess he thought his time was better spent chasing after interns.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but did Clinton get up in front of the United Nations and lay out his case for why Lewinsky should give him oral sex in the Oval Office and then have the Security Council pass resolutions in his favor? Did Clinton go before Congress to have them vote on his affair, or vote on an appropriations bill for books of poems and cigars? Nothing Bush did on Iraq was the least bit hidden from public view.
You can't even compare the two President's lies. Clinton lied about something he thought, and hoped, no one would ever find out about. President Bush "lied" while at the same time sending in inspection teams and liberating Iraqi voices who could speak against him if he were to be wrong. Nobody lies on purpose and then gives support to the people who can prove them wrong.
2 comments:
Perhaps if you had read the piece with an open mind, as I read yours, you may have seen the satirical quality with which Ms. O'Dowd makes those comments. I think she probably is making a comparison as everyone wanted Bill Clinton IMPEACHED because of his affair, which by the way is Hilaries problem, not ours, but has let the false statements by this administration go by the wayside, as no one has taken accountability. Carl Rove leaked the name of the CIA operative who was investigating the claims of attempts by Iraq to get uranium from Niger. If she had completed her mission, she would have discovered the document false. Now, can you honestly tell me that doing that was in our best interest. The White House has already conceaded the document not valid. The question is did they know it before they used it? The recent dealings with Carl Rove would suggest they did. Please Howard, the most difficult thing I have found to date being a De3mocrat, is that most Republicans aren't intereested in intelligent dialog, they would rather throw mud, as do, I admit some Dems. I am not one of them. Please don't fall into the same category as the other bloggers who simply spew forth retoric without knowleledge behind it. Make yours a departure from the norm by looking at both sides. Debbie
When someone can actually prove that President Bush or Karl Rove has lied in a court of law I will be the first to condemn either one of them. Bush didn't tell us that Iraq had WMDs - everyone INCLUDING President Clinton said Iraq had WMDs. Why the blame gets pinned on Bush can only be caused by Bush Derangement Syndrome as the Right likes to call it.
I am willing to listen - but to facts - not beliefs. For example I think our courts will determine whether Karl Rove did anything wrong in the Plame affair - I don't depend on the conspiracy theorists who prejudge the guilt of anyone they don't like.
I appreciate your comments, but the "Bush lied, people died" argument is way too much of a simplification of events and facts to work for me.
When I see the miilions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq lining up to vote in elections that nobody has cliamed were not freely and fairly contested, I am proud of what my President has done to advance human freedom, not ashamed.
While I hate to sound like a chickenhawk, I would like to quote Thomas Jefferson - "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots
and tyrants."
GBAM
Post a Comment