If you supported the impeachment of Clinton because he lied about a BJ, then?

Question

If you supported the impeachment of Clinton because he lied about a BJ, then why dont you support the move to impeach George W Bush who has lied about much worse?

First, a married man lying about a BJ under oath is no crime in my book or should it be in any mans book. On the other hand we all know about the numerous Bush lies. I will not list them because I can’t stand reading other peoples long drawn out copies and paste of the internet.

Please make a case without giving me this under oath crap. It’s a BJ, since when is the presidents Johnson a piece of national security?

Answer 1

Well, you are not very clear about what you think Bush "lied about" so I'll assume you meant WMDs. There are three key distinctions to be made. First, Clinton didn't just lie about a hummer, he lied about it under oath and as part of a sexual harassment lawsuit. Second, it is abudantly clear that Bush did not know there weren't WMDs. Our own intelligence services told him there were WMDs, backed by every major intelligence agency in the world. Finally, some would argue that Bush did not lie, as coalition forces have found some 500 shells containing mustard gas or sarin nerve agent.

Answer 2

Forget lying under oath, what lie can anyone point to that Bush ever told?

Don't get me wrong, though a Republican who voted for Bush twice, I now think my second vote was a mistake, and the country will be better off in 2008 when we elect a new President. But the whole "Bush lied" thing, which I suppose has its origins in the WMD issue, was one that always just rang hollow, and those who have repeated it have hurt the cause of making a reliable critique of his policies.

Answer 3

The fact that it was a BJ from an ugly fat girl in the Oval office is immaterial.

What is material is Clinton lied under oath in a civil trial. For ordinary people, that's called perjury and can lead to prison time.

If everyone was allowed to do what he did (lie to protect himself), then our civil justice system might as well not exist.

Answer 4

Clinton lied in court under oath. That's called perjury. Regardless of what it was about. And he obstructed the investigation into this crime, which is yet another crime.

Regarding Bush, you've yet to prove that he has lied about anything, let alone doing it criminally.

Do you ever get tired of your own ignorance?

Answer 5

Here is your case. First of all if you have public knowledge and proof that president Bush lied then show the world. Bush acted on what was reported to him by members of 5 different law enforcement agency's and went to congress with what evidence was there and laid it out on the table for all the Senators to see including Hillary Clinton. Now to be honest I don't expect much in powers of observation from Hillary considering she couldn't see her husband getting his pipe smoked by Monica in her own house but I will move on.
Now all the Senators voted on what was presented to them and were allowed to refute and add their own opinions and that includes Senator John Kerry a democrat who also voted to go to war and then later tried to craw-fish out of it making a fool of himself and his party.
I ask you this once again, if these same Senators that voted to go to war and Bush are all guilty of lying then why are they not all impeached? BECAUSE THEY DIDN"T LIE, PERIOD. They acted on the information they had. I don't agree with the Iraq invasion but in the same token I also do not believe Bush lied to anyone . I believe he might have been mislead by intelligence reports and that is the only thing he is guilty of and so is every other Senator that voted to go to war democratic or Republican.

Answer 6

enable's go over it back. . . a million. Clinton not in common words lied, yet he lied in a civil case. that should be commonly used as perjury, and perjury is against the law. Now no matter if it meets the known of "extreme crimes and misdomeanors" as called for with the help of the structure is controversial, that's what Congress did. ultimately, the Senate determined it replaced into not adequate of a reason to get rid of him from means. 2. you don't know that Bush "lied' about taking us into an unjust conflict. it really is completely available that he acted on the most acceptable intelligence he had available, yet his end of WMD's replaced into incorrect. try to be incorrect without mendacity. 3. no matter if Bush lied about WMD's, this isn't unavoidably against the law. Granted, it isn't a sensible element to do and one ought to wish for further from a public reputable, quite the President. yet mendacity in and of itself isn't a "extreme crime or misdomeanor.". Face it, if mendacity replaced into against the law, there would not be a good purchase of politicians left in Washington.

Answer 7

I don't care what Clinton lied ABOUT. He lied UNDER OATH - which carries a penalty called perjury (I assume you've heard about it). To my knowledge GWB has not been under oath at any time and there is still an honest debate about what he has lied or IF he has lied, misled, been misled, or received bad information.

Answer 8

Because Bush's decision to invade Iraq was approved by Congress. Don't think that Clinton was interested in a vote on his activities.

Answer 9

I don't support either. I think people have gotten away from what the act of impeachment means, and there for is merely a political game.

If you don't like the way things are going, VOTE!

Answer 10

Clinton got fellated by a coed intern. Bush got f*cked up the a*s by a 47-year old gay hooker. At least Clinton likes girls. Bush likes to BE the girl.