Quote:
|
Originally Posted by freemonkey
Something has troubled me (not to say that this is the only thing that has troubled me) a great deal over Bush's term, and especially over the recent months of the campaign.
Back when Clinton was being tried in the public opinion over his affair, many people could not stop talking about how if he lied about an affair, he'd lie about anything, and thus, cannot be trusted to be president.
As Bush's lies are being uncovered, I'm not hearing the same kind of talk. I'm not sure I understand why.
IMO, lies about whether or not a guy is having an extramarital affair and lies about what we are doing in Irag, among other lie, are hugely different. If it were just a media thing, I'd understand, spin, yadda, yadda. But I'm talking about people I know. Why would people think Bush's lies are lighter than Clinton's? I just don't get it, where's the perspective?
|
Because lying about sex is more offensive to conservatives than lying about why you started a war.
After all, sex is morally questionable in the first place, whereas war is....well, war is patriotic, no matter how it got started.