2006-06-22 18:14:57 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
How funny. Just last week, people were talking about lying about WMD. Now it's changed to imminent threat to America?
2006-06-22 18:46:33 · answer #1 · answered by double_nubbins 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Iraqi Imminent Threat to America
2006-06-23 01:17:13 · answer #2 · answered by london_calling 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well... Iraq has not been a direct threat to America for quite a while... they just don't have the means to pull of an attack...
They talk about WMD... but even if they did have some gases... is that worse than nuclear weapons... of course not... so why did we make Saddam a priority over N. Korea and Iraq? (who could and would have given terrorist a nuclear weapon, if the terrorists wanted one)... I have no idea...
And Osama has already killed 3,000 and bush said he doesn't care where he is... what?
I'm not so sure he was lying... but I would rather have someone lie about a blowjb than totally have no idea as to what threats are a priority or not
2006-06-23 01:44:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is rhetorical (because your desired answer is obvious.)
Perhaps people who voted for Bush would say the blowjbb was worse,
but anyone with a brain (who uses it) will answer, lying us into a war is
the worse act. See "The Case For Impeachment" by David Lindorff and
Barbara Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights, St. Martin's Press
(just out) and "Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush", from CCR-NY.
See also "How would a Patriot Act?", by Glenn Greenwald.
2006-06-23 01:21:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the reason behind the lie.
Did Clinton really have the CIA and the NSA telling him that a ******** wasn't really sex, or was he just trying to slime his way out of trouble with Hilary and using his position as the most powerful man in the world to do it?
Every time I even see him on T.V I feel like I need to wash my hands, and check my wallet to see if I have been robbed....
2006-06-23 01:26:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
lying about Iraqi was worse at least with the blowjb nobody was killed.
2006-06-23 01:21:21 · answer #6 · answered by shadow_queen_123 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here's a better question: which was worse of Clinton: lying about a bj or giving nuclear weapons to Iran?
2006-06-23 01:20:41 · answer #7 · answered by MB 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton is guilty of both. President Bush was only repeating what Clinton said in 1998-99.
2006-06-23 02:21:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm not sure. i mean, lying about a bj is pretty bad. it's not fair for one guy to have all the fun. you're gotta tell your boys so they can get in on it. they'll get mad and impeach you if you don't.
lying about a reason to go to war and kill and injure tens of thousands of american and iraqui soldiers? you've gotta protect the family rep. dubya was just looking out for pops. it'll make the fam look bad if saddam makes you look like an idiot for the second time. besides, "weapons of mass destruction" looks much better on paper than "revenge".
2006-06-23 01:19:41 · answer #9 · answered by jkelmagic 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton had direct knowledge of the bj...Bush didn't have direct knowledge...he had to rely on other peoples assessment...BIG difference...Clinton lied under oath...Bush did not...they have found WMDs...and we can't know if it was imminent threat because we took our fate into our own hands...we didn't wait to be attacked again like Clinton did...
2006-06-23 01:18:46 · answer #10 · answered by turntable 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋