Who is corrupt?

Remove all ads!

This thread is an outgrowth of the whole Bush / Clinton thread, but it addresses a broader range of time and a broader topic -- if an Admin would like to change the title to something different, please do so -- I had a hard time coming up with a title.

I am about to express a rather radical opinion here, which I will sum up with a simple Q and A:

Q: What Commandment did Richard Nixon break?

A: The 11th Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Get Caught!

I think that if you dug deeply enough into the behaviour of any President, or any political leader, anywhere, you are very likely to find some nasty, dirty laundry -- in the case of the Presidents, impeachable offenses. I've read a fair amount of stuff that implies that the American's fair-haired boy, JFK, was not exactly as pure as his Camelot image. Nixon, and to a FAR lesser degree Clinton, likely didn't do anything that their predecessors hadn't done. They just weren't careful enough to avoid detection. In the case of Bush Jr., he's been caught but is lucky enough to be able to smokescreen, spin, waffle and otherwise weasel his way out of an impeachment or other punishment.

I realize that this is entirely, hugely cynical, but I just find it difficult to believe that a person can succeed at big league politics without doing something illegal.

 

Hmmm... I'm not really sure what you're asking. If your premise is that a great deal of presidents have done some very unpresidential things, many of which go undetected, I agree. In fact, I'd imagine that the 20th and now 21st century presidents have a much harder go of it than the earlier ones. In the 1800s I cannot imagine the press being as on top of things as they are today. So yeah - I think a lot of presidents - I'd say the majority - have done some illegal things.

 

Yeah, Nixon was pretty corrupt and he surrounded himself with a group of henchmen to do his illegal work for him:

G. Gordon Liddy:

These days, this ex-Nixon convicted thug, is a poltical commentator on radio, who some conservatives take seriously. Hence, the reason many others don't take this "macho and criminal" form of conservatism seriously either. But he's popular on FOX "News."

But the question remains: Was Nixon asking them to take out Anderson? I think so. Nixon declared "war" on almost anyone he saw as an enemy. He even had an "Enemies List." The guy was just strange -- and corrupt.

 

I don't think the question *whether* presidents are corrupt is relevant.
It's about *how* corrupt they are, how far they go, and at what point we would consider it unacceptable.

 

I just assume they all are. Then I only get surprised when they get caught. Sometimes what they get caught for is a surprise...

 

The reason Bush hasn't been impeached is fairly simple. (The actual crimes are well documented and are on the nightly news, many blogs and elsewhere--books, things like that-- and I won't bother to recount them here, unless someone insists.) The Republicans controlled Congress until the 2006 elections, when the Democrats won control, and of course the GOP weren't about to impeach a GOP President, particularly one known for taking fierce measures against opponents. Plus, until 2005, all seemed to be going well, despite certain irregularities pointed out by a bunch of whiners.

But although the Democrats now control Congress, impeachment would be a pointless distraction from the election, and the very real issues it involves, for the simple reason that they can't do it. They control the House of Representatives, and could vote to impeach the President, but they could never convict. A conviction requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate, and the margin there, I believe, is 50 to 49 with 1 independent.

An impossible impeachment, and one that would focus all attention onto itself, and away from the very real issues before the country. It would smear Bush thoroughly, but he's not running in this election. Would McCain catch enough of the splatter to make it worthwhile? I don't think so.

 

Sometimes 'getting caught' is misleading. In a twist of events, they may actually be the ones that have morality issues. If they are unwilling to go as far as their colleagues/advisors want them to, they are 'ratted out' by them, for a lesser issue. Perhaps that was what happened to Clinton? He seemed relatively morally sound in political affairs (I'm choosing my words carefully). Seriously, did the cigar thing make him less of a president?

 

The "cigar thing" has been beaten to death so I'll keep it short. For many people (myself included) it wasn't so much that he had an affair as most people at least understand a moment or moments of weakness. The truly damning part was that he looked at us in the eye and lied to us with such conviction. After that I was done with him, for how can you trust someone who can lie so easily and convincingly.

 

TGS, he lied to save his marriage. And his presidency of course. Did you expect him not to lie, when asked such a none-of-your--business question? Are you surprised that politicians are good liars? I think his own squeaky-clean image became the noose by which he hung himself. You wouldn't be so disillusioned if Bush turned out to be a good liar.

Tal, I can see the great divide before me, a president who:
- Turns out to be gay, or bisexual
- Smoked pot in college
- Who's wife had an abortion
- Maybe it becomes known that he's an unbaptized bastard..?
East of the atlantic people are thinking: What the heck is the problem?
But sometimes an affair is made into an issue, and politicians can lose their jobs over it. I remember a well liked Amsterdam city counsil member, who told the wrong person that he went to the Red Light District (I don't go there, but part of it is at the end of my street), and he lost his job as a politician. He's got his own newspaper column in a national paper now, and is free to voice some pretty sharp opinions.

 

To put it as bluntly as possible, I'd guess that about 99% of all men would lie about getting a blowjob from someone other than their wife. And given that the Mrs. would be none too be pleased about it, you better damn well lie convincingly.

 

I agree. In a situation like that you deny, deny, and then deny some more. I can understand that with Hillary. For the rest of us, he should of just kept quiet. Whenever I think of this topic, this just always comes to my mind. Enjoy

Click here

@Tal, I couldn't get the inbed to work. Help if you can.

 

i generally don't care what the hell politicians do off the clock if you can use that term about politicians, as long as they lead the policies they where voted in on, and it is something i can support.

if they have to lie to their wife or the general population about their personal life so be it

and about them lying to the general population about their politics, i would rather have that as opposed to politicians not having to lie about the atrocities they have/are committing