shakran

Well now that depends. You can't be supporting a president AND wanting to see them brought up on charges of wrongdoing. Those who wanted to impeach Clinton were NOT supporting him. Those investigating Reagan during Iran Contra were NOT supporting him.

Blindly saying that you support someone simply because of the office they hold and not because of their actions in that office is setting a dangerous mindset for democracy. I support the president when he has EARNED that support. Sending troops to Iraq to die in droves for a lie does not earn that support. Appointing an incompetent to the head of the agency responsible for keeping his citizens safe in an emergency does not earn that support. Continuing to vacation while his citizens suffer in the aftermath of one of the worst storms ever to hit the country does not earn that support.

That's not to say I don't support some of his decisions. I supported his decision to invade Afghanistan because Afghanistan was harboring the terrorist who hurt us. That was a good decision. Had he actually followed through and finished business in Afghanistan I would have supported that. I did not, however, support the decision to get distracted by Iraq, which had not attacked us, and in consequence ignoring Al Qaeda, which had.

I didn't support Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal - although I must say that was a rather silly thing to go after him on. So he cheated on his wife? So the hell what? That's between him and his wife. Frankly, I'd have supported him much more if, in answer to the "did you sleep with Lewinsky" question he'd quoted LBJ and told his interrogators it was "none of your goddamn business".

I also did not support Clinton in his response to the first bombing of the WTC, also by bin Laden. I thought we should have gone after him then. Lobbing a few dozen cruise missles at a pharmaceutical factory was not an effective response. I did not, nor do I to this day, support his "close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and hope the bad people go away" strategy to dealing with terrorism.

That said, I did not support the Clinton persecutors who wanted to find out what he did to women with his cigars while helping to bury the growing terrorism problem. Frankly I think a situation that puts the lives of our country's citizens at risk is far more important than phallic smokes. Had we worried less about Clinton's personal life, however titillating, and more about catching those who had already hurt us and obviously were out to hurt us again, we might have averted 9/11.





I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that I am not one of those who thinks President X is always wrong while President Y can do no wrong. I also agree with AVoiceOfReason that justifying Bush's actions because "well gee Clinton screwed up too!" is bullshit. What Clinton did is history. It's irrelevant when considering the ramifications of what Bush did. Frankly, if your best defense is "clinton sucked, so there!" then you must know you are supporting a sinking president and that you have no real argument left with which to prop him up.