Reps and Dems answer this please.?

Question

Ok why is it that when someone who opposes Bush says something about the war in Iraq, those who support bush always counter with Clinton lying about having sex with Monica. How do the 2 compare? One lied and now we have an unstable nation full of turmoil, 2500+ American soldiers dead and a plumiting defecit vs. one lied about a relationship outside of his marriage and the only ones affected probably were the wife and daughter.

Answer 1

Its easy enough, they cannot justify Bush, so they switch subjects- when they do , its proof enough, they cannot defend Bush .

Answer 2

Fine, just wait till we really learn what Clintion did in office, we just don't know beocuse he can hide behind the Monica Case, it's his best defence from being attacked on other fronts.

Why do the Dems attack Bush non-stop. They need to look at the larger pictures, Bush masy not have doen the best things while in office, but he did what he believed to be the right thing for the country.

We don't know what the alteritives are, so we can't say just how bad it could have been. And we seem to judge harchly beocuse it's a Bush in office.

Bush did what he could with the intell he was given by advicers and staff (his "lie;s were misinformed facts from others), where Clintion deliberatly hid the facts and flat out lied to hide his own activities. Besided, it sent a negitive message when the Man who we give great respect does somethign which our soicety sees as a disgraceful act, in OUR home (the White House is a Public Building which we allow the President and Family to use.) So, where the results may not be the same. Bush didn't lie to hide, he "lied beocuse he was told the wrong infromation, where Clintion flat out hid and ran from an issue.

Besides, no one can defend anyone else, beocuse people won't listen and accept the arguements, they just accept ehat they already believe and won't listen to the arguements, such as the one above, which most liekly will be disreuagred, if you even got this far in reading.

Answer 3

The correct answer is they don't compare. Demecrats love to taut "the lies of going to war". What lies? Clinton thought Iraq had wepons of mass destruction, that the country was helping Al Quida. It does question that if he did something would 9/11 have happened. Republicans love to state what Clinton did. I guess because it shows that Demecrats have "lied" too. There are much better examples like Johnson or Carter, but Clinton is the most recent. As a republican I am not happy with being in war or the defecit. The defiect falls in line with the economy and cycle so really not the same thing. Clinton's lie did effect everyone to a degree. Bush didn't lie but probably could have waited or used more backing to invade Iraq. It is easy to critisize both, but how would you have responded given the same information and not what you know now. My guess is most would have done what Bush did dispite what they say. The trick is to support a solution to problems and back it. If your solution is not used please back what is choicen and try to make it work and not undermind it. It's hard I've had many issues use methods that I wouldn't choose but that gives me no right to undermind it. I still question it and discuss options, but follow what my country men and women because it is what is best for them and discion makers may have information I don't have access to.

Answer 4

Clinton's statements and actions in the context of a civil lawsuit constituted perjury and obstruction of justice. No matter what the subject matter of a lawsuit, you can't lie to the court.

Maybe the law should be changed to make it harder to bring in such evidence in sexual harrasment cases. But the law which allowed Clinton to be questioned as he was had actually been hailed by feminists and was signed by Clinton himself.

Bush, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, many other political leaders and many intelligence agencies around the world were convinced Saddam had more WMDs than were found. Many of the statements saying they were there pre-dated Bush's presidency. These many people were mistaken.

I do not believe Bush, and all these other people, agencies and countries were all lying - saying something KNOWING it was not true. I think Iraq war opponents waste time trying to make the case that Bush is a liar, evil, financially interested, etc. All they need to say to prove their point and perhaps get different leadership is that Bush's policies are a mistake and not working if that's what they believe. When they make the whole argument about did he lie or not, and it's fairly well demonstrable that there were not deliberate falsehoods, they lose an argument they didn't even have to make and waste a chance to get their goals accomplished.

Answer 5

Only one affect his family?! Really while Clinton thought getting head in Oval Office was important he let Bin Laden get away later to kill 3000 in WTC attack. Clinton lied under Oath "a crime" Bush did not lie who got poor Intel that proved later to be false. Same Intel Congress saw!! Who overwhelmingly approved War this included both John Kerry and Joe Lieberman!! Clinton spoke with members of Congress while Monica was under table (he admits this) What was his motivation for decisions during this act if he could even think? No his family wasn't only one effected. Lets not forget Gennifer Flowers, Paul Jones and others!! 2500 Americans dead yes but guess what in Kennedy's War Vietnam we lost that many and more a day!! How soon we forget! I might add that Bush supporter don't always comeback with Monica but its part of who Clinton was and his legacy. Why when ever something about a liberal is brought up Liberals counter with Irag War? The shoe fit on both feet on both sides. How do lies compare they don't!! Bush did not lie Clinton did!

Answer 6

It's nice that you try to understand politics by studying history, but let's not forget the importance of reading the news also. WMD's where found in Iraq, and the ones we couldn't find were snuck out of the country to Syria by the Russians. Last week the Discovery Channel had a program on about the war that showed hundreds of trucks emptying out a weapons depot near Baghdad shortly after the invasion.



WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."

"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.

Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.

There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.

Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning.

Answer 7

Your forgetting that when the Monica deal was coming to Life Clinton shot missiles at Afghanistan, Clinton also has us in Bosnia, Somalia, not to mention Whitewater and all the other civil charges,pardons to friends for illegal campaign contributions and tax evasion. Lying under oath (perjury)If it was only Monica I could understand but everyone wants to gloss over everything he did.
Seems alot of people feel as long as the economy looked good they didn't care what else he did. I would like the president to have a few morals and scruples. He had none. He just was great at saying what people wanted to hear

Answer 8

Clinton lied about a great many things, that one affair was the only one the media focused on. The investigation was actually about him trying to use her to silence potenial witnesses in a civil case againest him. That was the crime.
As far as Bush lieing about the reason for the war, if you say something with the belief that it's true because all your information says so, then it cant be proven, is that a lie?

Answer 9

No they do not compare..and not one intelligent Republican would use that reason. You are obviously asking the wrong people. Bush didn't lie about Iraq, he went with the intel he had. Clinton did lie, underoath as a matter of fact. No comparison at all.

Answer 10

Those people are irrational activists, who are so embarrassed about being completely wrong to start a war in Iraq they try and deflect your attention from their incompetence toward Clinton's libido.

The high school equivalent of their reasoning is like this:
Teacher: You got #7 wrong.
Conservative student: But I got #3 right so you are wrong.

Unfortunately, there isn't an all knowing authority in politics to say, "Uhhhhh....No, you still got #7 wrong."

You are exactly right. My guess is most of them don't have college educations; therefore, they haven't learned how to reason and build logical arguments that could pass critical scrutiny.

Answer 11

If Bush "lied" about WMD, then so did all those Democrap Senators and Republicans who received THE SAME INFORMATION/INTELLIGENCE as Bush and vote FOR the war.

Geez...get it through your tinfoiled head, Libs. It was wrong information. Got it? Good!

Klinton did lie about what he did in the White House.