lying about oral sex or lying about weapons of mass destruction that resulted in billions of dollars and tens of thousands of casualties?
2006-06-15 05:10:59 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
definetly the last one..i hope someone hurries up and gives bush a bj so we can impeach him too
2006-06-15 05:15:16 · answer #1 · answered by sexxxy 2 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Well, I could answer by saying that "it depends on what the meaning of is is". But that would be a low blow, right?
Actually, this one is easy...
The answer is the one that ACTUALLY occured. Bill Clinton DID commit perjury (he lied under oath). It's also clearly an impeachable offense because he was, in fact, impeached!
The second one did not occur. Nobody LIED about WMD's. We all believed Saddam still possessed WMD's (Republicans, Democrats, Americans, non-Americans). The Clintons believed it, John Kerry believed it, and the Kurds whom Saddam gassed in 1988 certainly believed it.
If, when we got to Iraq, Saddam had moved or disposed of his WMD's that doesn't make anybody who believed otherwise guilty of a lie.
But no matter. None of you rabid Bush-haters will listen to reason. If some idiot wrote that he heard that George Bush kicked his dog, you'd be forwarding the information all over the internet with glee!
Screaming something a thousand times cannot make it true.
P.S. The Articles of Impeachment some clown pasted into his answer are only slightly less of a pipedream than the conspiracy theorists' "evidence" that our government actually flew cargo planes into the World Trade Centers.
Whackos!
2006-06-15 12:35:02 · answer #2 · answered by idlebud 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One point never made here: Clinton was willing to testify under oath; something Bush will NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER EVER EVER do. He can't even speak in front of an audience that isn't handpicked and prescreened.
Another point. The far right didn't decide that Clinton committed an offense and that he should be impeached. They decided he should be impeached and then spent five years and $40 million of taxpayer dollars looking for something, anything, to charge him with. Fellatio was the best they could do.
Third point: We didn't NEED to go to war with Iraq at all. For those he say we did, then you should be over there fighting right now. But you're not. That war has no end in sight and will cost over a trillion before it is done.
Impeach Bush. No President has deserved it more.
2006-06-15 12:22:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you go back in time in your head and think.... Bush and the Fox networks are the ones the spewed out WMD's, WMD's, WMD's.
The U.S. spent $40 Million on the investigations of Clinton getting his knob polished by an intern. La-de-da! Only $600,000 was spent on the 9/11 Commission Reports investigation. Hmmm, a cover up of sorts?!?!?!?!
Think about this if you do not live in NYC...70% of NYC residents (where the twin towers and other buildings were) believe that the government and businesses were involved with the "terrorist attacks." THINK PEOPLE!!!!!
Beyond being impeached, Bush should be tried for war crimes against the citizens of the United States.
2006-06-15 12:36:56 · answer #4 · answered by lydia_online 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow, I am flabbergasted that people think that Clinton lying about his sex life has something to do with his ability to run the country.
I guess lying is okay as long as you are not under oath.. Hmm who cares that innocent people are dying everyday, at least W didn't lie under oath..
It is scary how shortsighted we are all becoming when we lose focus like we have on these issues in order to be right.. Very scary. Gang mentality is rampant in the USA. It will eventually destroy us as a nation if allowed to fester.
W has done great things and bad things as did every single president before him, but you all have to admit without the technicalities, none of Clinton's lies ever effected us as a people and have divided us as a nation the way W has. Sorry but the fact is it seems acceptable to HATE someone for not sharing the same views as you and we are a nation that was FOUNDED on being free to have different views WITHOUT persecution. So whether you think one was worse than the other, debate THE ISSUE do not use underhanded motives into bullying or shaming someonone with different views than yours. That to me is Un-American.
2006-06-15 12:24:56 · answer #5 · answered by babygyrl_nyc 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The lying about oral sex since that was done under oath, which is considered perjury.
The "lying" about weapons of mass destructions was never done under oath so no crime was committed.
Oh, didn't think people would notice you left out a bit of important information did you?
2006-06-15 12:12:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
President Bush did not lie about wmd. The intelligence was faulty and they were probably transported to Syria. Besides that, most Democrats agreed that they did have wmd and it is widely known that Hussein used them against his own people. Preident Clinton lied under oath. It does not matter about the oral sex just the fact that he lied. Iraq was invaded due to Husseins failure to comply with the inspections and Democrats as well as Republicans agreed that measures had to be taken and that means military action, yet people want to blame it all on President Bush which is wrong.
2006-06-15 12:19:54 · answer #7 · answered by toughguy2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evidently we're okay with genocide, but a bl*w j*b- that's a moral defficiency.
With a democratic congress, bush will be impeached. With a republican congress, bush may still be impeached. A job approval rating of 28% means that republican senators are going to have to fish or cut bait, they're going to have to distance themselves from this timebomb of a president somehow, or lose their own jobs...
Are we really debating the merits of Perjury vs. TREASON? GW took an oath to protect the constitution and people of the United States, not subvert them at every opportunity. How's THAT for perjury?
2006-06-15 12:14:09 · answer #8 · answered by Beardog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since this is apparently hypothetical, since neither on of these things has occurred, then, naturally, lying about war is more impeachable.
But since Clinton was impeached for perjury (for which he was disbarred) and obstruction of justice, and since Bush has not lied about the WMD, this is a moot question.
2006-06-15 12:31:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Lying" under oath is an impeachable offense regardless of what it is about...so the former. Stating something you truly believe to be a fact...whether it turns out to be accurate later or not is not impeachable.
Sorry, I know you would like it to be otherwise...but there it is.
2006-06-15 12:45:14 · answer #10 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is obvious; Lying about weapons of mass destruction (had he been under oath).
2006-06-15 13:21:48 · answer #11 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋