It still matters.
2006-09-23 09:52:37 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bill Clinton is a womanizer, but so were many of our presidents, dating back to the Founding Fathers. I personally don't care what a President does sexually so long as it's not hurting anyone. I think the whole Monica-gate thing was bogus and stupid, of course he was going to lie in front of cameras, he had a kid and a family to consider. Warren Harding infact had an affair with a teenaged girl while in office.
President Bush is probably an alcoholic, not to mention while in the national guard he refused to take a drug test and has never addressed the issue of his former drug use, which unlike Clinton includes hard drugs like cocaine. I'd rather have a stoner as a president than a coke-fiend, but that's just me.
2006-09-23 10:04:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, many women have gone on the record to accuse President Clinton of sexual misconduct, including at least attempted rape, and President Bush has admitted to being a recovering alcoholic.
2006-09-23 09:56:29 · answer #2 · answered by roamin70 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The first is not true, although it ended up that he "did have sex with that woman" (oral), and yes, Bush is a recovering alcoholic. He's recovering in that he used to drink alcohol excessively, was given an ultimatum by his wife, Laura (me or the booze) and gave up alcohol but never went into the 12 steps program. (if you believe in the AA way, that is!)
Some believe that his resoluteness (or stubbornness) is a result of his alcoholic/dry drunk status. HIs is the true believer way: you're either with me or you're against me.
2006-09-23 09:58:36 · answer #3 · answered by Shelley 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I undergo in recommendations the first few months of Bush's first time period, and we had nowhere close to one among those meltdown on the prompt that we've. until eventually 9/11, the significant information on television each and every evening change into about human beings getting bitten through sharks in Florida, and a lacking DC intern who were having an affair with a congressman. there change into no monetary emergency in 2001, no plummeting fairness, no vast layoffs, no huge company bailouts. it will be disingenuous to analyze prominent economic situation to the only Bush inherited from Clinton, and that i'd suspect every person who did so of having partisan causes.
2016-10-16 01:57:45 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was accused of sexual harassment, not of rape. There is quite a difference. Bush is a recovering alcoholic.
2006-09-23 10:00:22 · answer #5 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes on both counts. The difference - Bush admits it. Clinton doens't want to go to prison so he ain't gonna admit anything...
Remember, the question was "ACCUSED".... not was/is he a rapist - that hasn't been determined. Probably never will.
2006-09-23 09:55:01 · answer #6 · answered by APRock 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The difference is the word accused. Clinton denies it, Bush admits it. Slam-Dunk!
2006-09-23 09:58:58 · answer #7 · answered by notme 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
why does it matter? just because someoneisaccused of something, doesn't mean they are guilty. Clinton wasacquitted, and it takes a lot of strength to give up an addiction like Bush did. Are you perfect?
2006-09-23 09:56:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bill Clinton was a philanderer and President Bush is a "Dry Drunk"...
2006-09-23 10:02:19 · answer #9 · answered by cheyennetomahawk 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes both are true, but an accusation does not constitute a fact and a reformed addict is an admirable person.
2006-09-23 09:54:06 · answer #10 · answered by CHEVICK_1776 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋