When Bill Clinton was being investigated for committing perjury in a deposition in a private matter, the House started impeachment proceedings against him. But when two of George Bush's major policies have now been found illegal -- his detention policy was ruled unconstitutional by the 7 Republican member United States Supreme Court no less, and his NSA spying policy was held unconstitutional today by a United States District Court -- nobody is demanding his trial. Shouldn't the same people who wanted Bill Clinton strung up for lying under oath be after Bush for trashing the Constitution that he took an oath to uphold?
2006-08-17 17:57:54 · 6 answers · asked by rollo_tomassi423 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
please just stick to fighting for your gay marriage
2006-08-17 18:01:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 8⤋
Clinton was a Democratic president with a Republican Congress. President Bush is a Republican, also with a Republican Congress. The Republicans are unlikely to impeach one of their own.
Not everything that is declared unconstitutional is grounds for impeachment. Impeachment should be a measure of last resort --clearly not the case in the Clinton impeachment--not a threat to be used in cases where there is political disagreement, however severe.
I disagree with President Bush's policies, and think that he's done a bad job. But impeachment is not the answer.
2006-08-18 01:24:11 · answer #2 · answered by anastasia 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what laws they break. And on who's doing the prosecuting.
Apparently, sex between consenting adults is more important to the American people and to Congress than willful violations of the constitution. Sad, but not really surprising. Especially with a partisan government that cares more about bashing the opposition than than it does actually doing its job. 28% approval rating for Congress, what's up with that.
Of course, people can change all that. They can elect a Congress that actually cares about holding elected officials accountable for their actions. They can demand that all criminals face the charges, and that having power or family status doesn't make you immune to prosecution.
Or they can be hypocritical, and try to argue that illegal conduct is only punishable when done by "illegals".
2006-08-18 01:08:27 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They had it in for Bill Clinton from the moment he entered office b/c he was from a small town in Arkansas. It's the same reason that, although every other president cheated on his wife, he was embarrassed and austrisized for it. He had a country accent, so people were intent on proving that he was inept at keeping office. You might think I'm being extreme, but stereotypes carry weight that is unreal.
2006-08-18 05:29:38 · answer #4 · answered by Cy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Power and money rule the world and Bush has both in his corner. I agree, he should be arrested and convicted of several crimes that make Bill Clintons charges seem like Disneyland. Clinton didn't kill anyone with his "weapon of mass destruction" whereas Bush kills thousands and thousands of innocent people as well as thousands of US military men and women---all behind a list of lies. Bush is ther most dishonest and dangerous person in the world today and should be tried as a terrorist.
2006-08-18 01:34:50 · answer #5 · answered by EMAILSKIP 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i agree that that was unfair, i love bill clinton and he was a great president. i think george w. bush was treated different becuz his father was president and his brother's the governor of florida (it's easy to win an election when ur brother's coutning the votes)and i think bill clinton's "crime" was not as bad as george w. bush's. so, i don't know why, but i do know it's unfair. if u were talking in general it's becuz people do different crimes that are less or more severe.
2006-08-18 01:30:19 · answer #6 · answered by lassie 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋