When Clinton lied...

I was wandering a forum (IMDB) on Michael Moore's upcoming mockumentary, Farenheit 9/11 1/2, and I ran into a conversation led by conservatives in the US, on how much Clinton lied too, and that he is not held accountable for that... All this as a reaction to the now-famous bumper sticker "When Clinton lied, no one died". I responded on impulse - really gut reaction, which was not smart, but I decided to post my response here, so maybe people can correct me, or support me. Please, only constructive criticism.

Comparing Clinton's lying to Bush's is pure lunacy in my humble opinion, but I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and opinion, so hey, those that do, be my guest. Let me express mine and say this:

The personal/sexual life of the President of a country should never be in the public debate - at least not in any further extent than that of any other private citizen. As head of state, they already lose a lot of their privacy; should we also take that of their private moments in bed... or in this case in their office? That it is sleazy to have mistresses is a matter of personal morals and beliefs. Unless I am mistaken, adultery is not punishable under the law. I do not know why Americans are hellbent on bringing everything to the courts. Now, Clinton DID lie, yes. But yet again so did Bush. And even though you can make very good arguments against the legality of the Kosovo war because of its unilateral nature, Clinton did not go there on false purposes. In other words, his lies did not involve a miscalculated, somewhat imperial, and oil-lucrative war, and he did not pretend as though he was the savior of "God's gift of freedom to humanity".


"Clinton also went without UN backing (in Kosovo)..."

No backing of the UN... well that's nothing new. The US is John Wayne country. Gung-ho, and on a power-trip. and that is true regardless of which party is in power. Clinton or Bush. The difference is, when Clinton orders the troops on a mission - however arrogant and/or succesful, it is to save people from a visible humanitarian catastrophe (Somalia, Kosovo). He paid for this dearly, when Rwanda's genocide came around (and I was living there at the time), and he was in a situation where public opinion could not even conceive of another mission in Africa. He is definitely not a Saint, but he knew when to take tough decisions for truly humanitarian causes... you know, saving lives, and stuff! The US is supposed to be - or at least it claims to be - the champion of human life, of human rights... Clinton - very clumsily - stood up for those principles, and he should be commended for that, just as much as he is condemned for his mistakes, if not more. And if he wants to get himself a bl... felatio in the process, I do not approve, but I really don't give a damn.

Now our friend Bush on the other end... Brother W sent the country to war on faulty - some say doctored - intelligence, in a country that was not a priority except for his clan, and for the occasional TV pastor asking for "an army of light to keep Babylon from destroying Jerusalem", as described in Zacharie I believe, in a country where any self-respecting Arab analyst could predict a bitter insurgency, and a negative reaction to a prolonged occupation; in a fairly recently decolonised (from the West) region that was already highly volatile, and hyper-hostile to US over-bearing (and some say imperial) military presence in the region...

Brother W gave a more fertile ground to Al-Qaeda to justify its existence, and come harm innocent civilians here in the US, and elsewhere on the planet... claims not to be there for oil or a new military presence, yet the existing deal negotiations on the ground show otherwise, on both fronts... promised 15 billion $ for AIDS in Africa that they yet have to receive...

Furthermore, on the homefront, Brother W leads an Administration that is more interested in focusing on how Americans make use of their genitalia (gay rights, pornography, and yes, reproductive rights) and whether or not English and Fundamentalist Christianity should dominate public life, rather than how they can make better use of their brains (how about actually putting money equally to all schools, for this No Child Left Behind scheme), how to increase their chances to stay alive in a dangerous environment (the lapsing of that weapon ban anyone?), how to guarantee the painfully gained rights of minorities in this country (that voting rights act is about to lapse!), or for that matter, the security of this country, because you know that the mess he has created in Iraq has the potential to haunt this country for DECADES in the future! Land of the Free, Home of the brave indeed...

So what do I take out of all this. They both lied, but one lie did kill for no clear and objective reason. Clinton did send soldier to Kosovo, and they are still there. But they have a clear and defined objective: help to reach final status for Kosovo. They (Clinton and co) went without UN approval, which is wrong. But they were savvy and humble enough to patch-up the situation with their allies, and the world... and they had clear vindicating proof that they had to do something, or people were going to be massacred. Bush went to Iraq without UN support which is wrong. But he was too arrogant and to self-confident to truly level with the rest of the World, thus jeopardizing their potential support... plus he had no clear evidence that he was justified to go there (no WMDs). If the argument before the War had been regime change, we would probably not have this discussion (and actually probably no war at all). But it was not, was it? Result: tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and 1300 US soldiers give or take... Clinton lied, and it was sleazy... but no one died - from that lie. Bush lied, and we can count the dead every day. That seems worse to me. But that is just my opinion.