• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which was the most egregious political scandal?

Which was the worst?

  • Watergate

    Votes: 18 38.3%
  • Iran Contra "gate"

    Votes: 24 51.1%
  • Lewinski"gate"

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Bengazi"gate"

    Votes: 4 8.5%

  • Total voters
    47
Watergate. After the several hitter of many political leaders and figures being assassinated, and being promised to have a sense of sanity in charge-a massive scandal such as that just undermined people's confidence in governance for quite some time.
 
OK, time for me to chime in on my own thread. There have been some excellent points brought up already.

Paschendale says:



which is a good point. Other than that, Watergate was simply a coverup of a burglary that most likely did nothing at all to influence the election anyway. The president was impeached for covering it up to protect his supporters, which was a prime example of bad judgement on the part of the POTUS.

Compare that to the Lewinski affair, Clinton was not tried for failure to keep his pants zipped, but for lying under oath. How that is less impeachable than covering up a burglary, I'm not sure. Most likely, the general political climate was different during the Clinton era than during the political turmoil of Vietnam and Civil Rights.

Neither was particularly egregious, IMO, but removing the POTUS was/would have been justified in either case.

As for Bengazi, just what laws were broken? This one appears to me to have been a massive screw up on the part of bureaucrats who were below cabinet level positions. It's not half the big deal that it's being made out to be.

That could be wrong, of course. We don't have all of the facts yet.

Now, that brings us to Iran Contra, the selling of arms to the enemy (treason), and using the profits to subvert the will of Congress. In that one, the Constitutional separation of powers was at risk. Moreover, a burglary or perjury does not even come close to treason. It's like comparing shoplifting to armed robbery, a whole other level of wrongdoing.

Iran Contra is the biggest of the four scandals, no question.

IMHO, of course.

Excellent post, excellent analysis, right on the money. :thumbs:
 
Lewinsky wasn't even the biggest one in that administration, let alone ever. Whitewater was a bigger faux pas than anything involving Monica.

Of the ones listed, Watergate was mostly publicity, and I'd go with Iran-Contra. I'm surprised that more "socialists" didn't come around and regurgitate pro-Allende/anti-Pinochet propaganda.
 
Lewinsky wasn't even the biggest one in that administration, let alone ever. Whitewater was a bigger faux pas than anything involving Monica.

Of the ones listed, Watergate was mostly publicity, and I'd go with Iran-Contra. I'm surprised that more "socialists" didn't come around and regurgitate pro-Allende/anti-Pinochet propaganda.

The support of the coup itself wasn't that big, especially since much of the bad things happened after the coup. No question it was terrible, but hardly on the same level as selling weapons to our enemies to fund the overthrow of openly, duly and freely elected democratic government by terrorists who killed, maimed, kidnapped and raped thousands of civilians.
 
Watergate, Iran Contra, the Monica Lewinski affair, or the mess in Bengazi?

Why?

Benghazi IF it turns out that the President knew his administration was misleading the American people.

Which, I think, at this point, is likely, but not proven.
 
Watergate. One thing that Watergate did was significantly alter the public's view of politicians in general. Until then, most people believed that certain politicians were corrupt/liars. AFTER Watergate, most people believed that most, if not all politicians were corrupt/liars. Changed the entire scope of how we view politics, government, and elected/appointed officials. Though Iran-Contragate may have been more significant from a legal standpoint, Watergate had more far reaching implications.
 
Oh.

By the time Ollie North and Co. got around to selling arms to Iran, the Shaw was gone, wasn't he? Wasn't Iran considered an enemy of the United States?

Enemies are created...
RMN was good at this, and was not the only one.
Fear is the culprit - in this case(Iran-Contra) - communism.
Watergate was so utterly un-necessary.
 
Watergate, Iran Contra, the Monica Lewinski affair, or the mess in Bengazi?

Why?

no one drowned at watergate

no one got blown up in Monicagate

Iran contra was a reaction to dems messing around with the president's turf in foreign policy
 
no one drowned at watergate

no one got blown up in Monicagate

Iran contra was a reaction to dems messing around with the president's turf in foreign policy

No doubt, Iran Contra would not have happened had the Democrats gone along with the president's desire to help the Contras.

Does Congress have no role to play in foreign affairs?
 
The Iran Contra Affair. Some of the convictions and indictments were pardoned by Reagan and the rest at the end of GW Bush Sr's time in office. No one was held accountable.

Oliver North would probably disagree with you about the "Nobody" part....
 
Oliver North would probably disagree with you about the "Nobody" part....

North was a nobody, comparatively speaking. The real criminal was Reagan.
 
North was a nobody, comparatively speaking. The real criminal was Reagan.

He was pretty addle and delegated everything to true believers who did things to please their demi-god (an object lesson for the Obama worshipers if they could open their eyes) so I doubt he really was that involved. Bush maybe was more culpable/suspect because he was probably more aware of what was going on. I was told by somebody when I worked in DC there had been a backroom deal to avoid his impeachment but the person did not know the details other than a deal had been made. May be true; may not be true--just something to consider.
 
no one drowned at watergate

no one got blown up in Monicagate

Iran contra was a reaction to dems messing around with the president's turf in foreign policy

Wait? So Congress does not determine funding? When did this happen?
 
Wait? So Congress does not determine funding? When did this happen?

Note how he said "president's turf," a weasel word, because no doubt fully aware that it was against the law, but he doesn't care.
 
North got off and is now a respected voice in the so called "conservative" community.

Yeah the darlings of the GOP, the ACLU, got his convictions vacated because his Congressional testimony for which he was granted immunity was used against him in his criminal trial. Lord forbid somebody defend the rights of a conservative white guy. He is respected moreso because of his military service and service to veterans than because of his politics. He, afterall, did not win a Senate seat in VA when VA was a red state. Nobody seriously pays attention to his politics.
 
Yeah the darlings of the GOP, the ACLU, got his convictions vacated because his Congressional testimony for which he was granted immunity was used against him in his criminal trial. Lord forbid somebody defend the rights of a conservative white guy. He is respected moreso because of his military service and service to veterans than because of his politics. He, afterall, did not win a Senate seat in VA when VA was a red state. Nobody seriously pays attention to his politics.

Interesting how the ACLU is seen as a "liberal" organization, isn't it?
 
Interesting how the ACLU is seen as a "liberal" organization, isn't it?

Probably moreso because they get tagged by the right with the work really being done by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but yes, though when pressed, the argument usually becomes something along the lines they used to be a good organization, but now they only represent the liberal agenda because they have been taken hostage by minorities and abortionists. I have to admit, I think their no religion anywhere near a public place doctrine damages their larger cause, but whatever, as I could give a tinker's darn about whether or not the 10 Commandments are displayed anywhere.
 
Probably moreso because they get tagged by the right with the work really being done by the Southern Poverty Law Center, but yes, though when pressed, the argument usually becomes something along the lines they used to be a good organization, but now they only represent the liberal agenda because they have been taken hostage by minorities and abortionists. I have to admit, I think their no religion anywhere near a public place doctrine damages their larger cause, but whatever, as I could give a tinker's darn about whether or not the 10 Commandments are displayed anywhere.
The stated mission of the ACLU is exactly what the mission of the government is supposed to be: To protect our Constitutional rights. If they've become a "liberal" organization, then there are two possibilities that come to mind:

Either they've strayed from t he original mission, or
What is seen as a liberal agenda is actually based on Constitutional rights.
 
The stated mission of the ACLU is exactly what the mission of the government is supposed to be: To protect our Constitutional rights. If they've become a "liberal" organization, then there are two possibilities that come to mind:

Either they've strayed from t he original mission, or
What is seen as a liberal agenda is actually based on Constitutional rights.

We will just have to disagree about what constitutes a Constitutional Right. While not a strict constructionist per se, I err on the side of not using the commerce and now the tax provisions as to do whatever the hell the government wants to do because somebody just wants it to be that way.
 
We will just have to disagree about what constitutes a Constitutional Right. While not a strict constructionist per se, I err on the side of not using the commerce and now the tax provisions as to do whatever the hell the government wants to do because somebody just wants it to be that way.

Constitutional rights are supposed to limit the powers of government and give to the citizens the rights to make their own decisions. The ACLU represents individuals, not the government.
 
Iran Contra no doubt.

Sell Arms to Iran then giving money to fascist guerrillas in Nicargua. Both transactions were contrary to acts of Congress which in return prohibited the funding of the Contras and the sale of weapons to Iran. And both actions violated UN sanctions.
 
If all the fluff, double-talk, and presidential involvement was set aside, and the true nature of Iran-Contra is laid bare, it was technically treasonous. Think about it: An American presidential administration was involved in selling arms to our country's "enemy", an enemy that had violated international law by breaching USA sovereign territory and holding American citizens hostage, in order to secretly support a foreign war in violation of an act of congress.

That, folks, is treason. Yes, yes, for political reasons the big "T" was never really mentioned, and all the players were either slapped on the wrist, pardoned, or given immunity... but the bottom line is that it was a rogue Whitehouse crapping on congress, on the judiciary, with secret arms sales to our sworn enemy while violating an act of congress. Nobody can reasonably compare than with a bungled burglary, and the "I am not a crook" lie whether it brought down the presidency or not.

Lying about a blowjob, bad. Impeachable offense? More like political opportunism, and only in America.

But tossing "Bengazi-gate" alongside the truly treasonous, when the only "crime" was having conflicted intelligence about a terrorist attack in *gasp!* an election year? That doesn't even rise to the level of scandal, despite the desperate fantasies of those who for whatever reason wish to elevate the fog of war surrounding a national tragedy into a game of partisian hacksmanship.

Just creating this poll in order to lump the Bengazi tragedy in with such aggregious prior travesties offends me. Perhaps that's because Ambassador Stevens was from my hometown. He was born here; he was buried here. His family not only had to deal with their grief over his death, they are devastated at how their son's loss has been exploited by political opportunists. Perhaps that's why I am more offended than most by the continued manipulation of this tragedy by partisian hackery.

/rant
 
Benghazi IF it turns out that the President knew his administration was misleading the American people.

Which, I think, at this point, is likely, but not proven.

Are you seriously saying that is worse then committing HIGH treason by selling weapons to America's enemies and then taking that money to fund terrorists to overthrow a freely elected Democratic government by bombing, murder, rape, kidnapping and maiming thousands of people?

Get some perspective.
 
Back
Top Bottom