President Clinton was impeached for lying about getting oral sex...President Bush has broken countless laws lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to start a war so his crooked buddies can profit. Which is worse lying about a bj or lying to start a war and getting tens of thousands of Americans injuried or killed and costing American taxpayers over 2 trillion dollars in long terms costs?
2006-08-20 14:49:13 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
clinton wasnt impeached.. but they tried to against him. As in every American citizen are damn holy. As if those guys out there dont cheat on their wives, commit poligamy and getting a bj from their secretaries. There were millions of paedophile even in the church.. so what makes the president of the US has to be a saint? As long as he does a good job in politics and handling the government.. even if he wanna sleep with 1000 women.. then its none of our business and not our problem.. his private life has nothing to do with anyone.. why would ppl be so nosy at the first place i wouldnt know. BUt Bush.. now Bush committed too many mistakes.. it becomes not a mistake anymore in the eyes of the public when it comes to his job.. causing death and turmoil around the world like never before in American history.. more wars and death and more hatred from the rest of the world.. towards America.. and more terrorist threat than ever before.. Americans always believe that the whole world and terrorist out there are just waiting to get them.. but they never ask why and who is the cause of why the terrorist wanna do so.. and the answer lies in the administration.. and yet.. i cant figure out why Mr Bush is still not being impeached by the ppl of the US. Why? dont they want the terrorism to stop? U cant stop it with Bush on the helm.. ur just making it worse.. cant the ppl just wake up now.. Wake up now!!
2006-08-20 15:03:10 · answer #1 · answered by Ownerz 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
John- That's a cute little website you posted. Now, YOU do your homework. All of those quotes are based on FALSE information given to congress and the American public by the Bush administration. The only exception to that would be the quote from Clinton in 1998. If you can remember that far back, he got no support from the Republican leadership. Trent Lott spoke out, saying that he could not support the President in his effort to disarm Iraq.
2006-08-20 22:30:43 · answer #2 · answered by rob 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Question: How exactly does he profit? In case you were wondering, Iraqi oil production is relatively unchanged before and after the war, and we import most (literally!) of our oil from Canada. Apparently, factories in Iraq that create explosive fertilizer filled too finely to be used (but finely enough to act as a neurotoxin) don't count as weapons of mass destruction. I'm not surprised that oral acts don't seem like anything earth shattering to you, what with your funny ideas.
2006-08-20 23:15:39 · answer #3 · answered by Chx 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. He pretty much did what Nixon did except on a mass basis (wiretap). He lied about the war, he's broken about every law you can imagine. Money laundring, lying to court, HE is a criminal. He has a DUI and he's a terrible president.
2006-08-21 18:33:16 · answer #4 · answered by centreofclassicrock 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have asked this question myself many, many times. Of course he should be impeached, but there is no way he will be. There are still way too many people who think he is actually been good for this country!
Like I have said time and time again, I wish someone would give W. a bj so we could impeach him!
btw surroundedby... Pres. Clinton most certainly was impeached...check your facts!
2006-08-20 21:56:02 · answer #5 · answered by kturner5265 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Of course he SHOULD be impeached; however, the Republicans are in the majority in both House and Senate, leading to a highly unbalanced partisan government which will not act against a president of their own party.
Sucks, and should not have been allowed to happen (we really should have a balance between President, Legislature and Supreme Court, party-wise), but there you are.
2006-08-20 21:58:05 · answer #6 · answered by grinningleaf 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
never knew clinton was impeached for lying about a bj. although I do know clinton was impeached for perjury under oath...also lost his law license in Arkansas and had a ban from the United States Supreme Court
2006-08-20 21:59:37 · answer #7 · answered by copaceticlove 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The thing is though is that he was acting on information from the CIA. He could simply say he did not lie, but got bad information. Therefore he could not be impeached because he thought he was telling the truth. Now if they could prove he falsified information than yes, he could be impeached.
2006-08-20 21:59:39 · answer #8 · answered by bumpocooper 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Being mistaken (based on evidence that goes back to the Clinton Administration) isn't lying. But since you made a mistake based on bad information, by your definition, you must be lying, too.
So, since, by your definition of lying, you lied. I shouldn't believe anything you say.
How's that for following the bouncing orb?
2006-08-20 22:04:16 · answer #9 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If Bush had actually broken any laws the democrats would have jumped on prosecution but since he didn't they can't. They'd just love to impeach him. The innocent can't be convicted.
2006-08-20 21:55:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋