The New Republic recently wrote about Peggy Noonan's as-usual rigorous and bracing reasoning, this time about Mark Felt. She wrote (my bolds):
What Mr. Felt helped produce was a weakened president who was a serious president at a serious time. Nixon’s ruin led to a cascade of catastrophic events—the crude and humiliating abandonment of Vietnam and the Vietnamese, the rise of a monster named Pol Pot, and millions—millions—killed in his genocide.... Is it terrible when an American president lies and surrounds himself by dirty tricksters? Yes, it is. How about the butchering of children in the South China Sea. Is that worse? Yes. Infinitely, unforgettably and forever.First, can you guess who reminds me of the words I bolded? Hmm, surrounds himself with "dirty tricksters," someone's coming to mind, give me a second -- oh yeah, GW! Iraq, 1700+ dead U.S. soldiers, thousands of dead Iraqi children -- that's pretty bad too, Peggy.
OK, so let me understand, according to Noonan's "logic" it's better (or less worse) to allow presidents to lie, and commit crimes. But I seem to recall a certain president got caught in a lie about BJs with an intern (not a crime) and I believe Noonan didn't like that one bit! Oh, and I don't think any kids died as a result.
Although wait a minute, if Clinton had not lied, than Gore likely wins, and we then don't go to Iraq, and thus no dead Iraqi kids -- by gosh she's right!