Why did we try to impeach Clinton but not Bush?

Question

I don't understand why we had to nail Clinton to a wall because he lied about getting some side action, yet Bush lied about the war in Iraq (Bin Laden who?). Just because Bill used his weapon of mass destruction, doesn't mean Bush had to invent one. Anyone who watches Springer knows that people in Arkansas lie about cheating. It's like busting Tommy Chong for pot or calling out Britney Spears for being white trash(she did kiss a forty-something year old lady on stage). But to wage a war with absolutely no idea of what they'd do after they captured the cowardly lion, now that's something I can't stop thinking about. Why is someone still commander in chief after he stuck our troops in the middle of a wasteland and drew a target on their backs? Who fights like that? John Wayne? I'll just stand here in this apache burial ground and draw them out. Someone explain this.

Answer 1

Honey,
If there's an explanation for this that makes sense, then we ain't in Kansas no more!
I never could figure out why anyone really cared what nasty things two consenting adults did in the (da da da daaaaa.....)Oval Office. Half of the rest of the world laughed at the hypocritical Americans making fools of themselves. (Because most other countries have people who realize that we are human and humans are basically animals [especially men][ha ha][joke, you guys, joke]) (Can you imagine the French getting upset over a mistress????) (Can you imagine the British discussing the DNA evidence, the cigars, etc.?) And the rest of the world shook its collective head and said, "That's what is wrong with Western thinking!"
It makes me feel like I'm living in a land where "the men on the chessboard get up and tell you where to go" and "red queens: "Off their heads". (And then we have so-called intelligent people defending--actually defending--the actions of this clown, as if any of this made any sense...)
Maybe the "terrorists" have put "acid" in the drinking water, and only us "old heads" are immune to it. The rest are led down the yellow brick road by the scarecrow (Oh! If he only had a brain....)

Answer 2

You're right...and if Clinton had only lied to Hillary about it, then he'd have been in the clear. (Well...she'd have probably kicked his ***, but he wouldn't have had any legal trouble.) But he lied under oath in a court of law. That's perjury, which is a felony. Personally, I wish he'd had enough character to resign. Al Gore would have been President, and would have probably looked good in the office. He's tall, and moderately handsome (by politician standards)...plus, he's a bit of a stiff...and that would have played well after Clinton's more charismatic nature. (Kinda like folks want their banker to be a little stodgy and conservative...no gambling trips to Reno, etc.) And Gore would have been re-elected, and we'd never have had this Bush screwup in Iraq.
But Clinton cared more for his damn legacy than for the country, and couldn't stand to be the only President ever removed from office by impeachment. So he fought it, which pretty much forced the Democrats to defend his sorry ***.
Voted for him both times, but what a worthless, disgusting piece of sh*t he turned out to be.
I think George Will (whom I usually disagree with) pegged him about right when said that Clinton is not the worst President ever....but IS the worst person who was every President.

Answer 3

He lied under oath ..for one.. The list of his & Hilary's crimes are numerous . They should have gone to prison with the McDougals in the Whitewater scam . Do you honestly think Hilary Clinton would let anyone in this world do something illegal that effected her -BEHIND HER BACK WITHOUT HER KNOWING IT ? Clinton was a philandering sexual abuser of women , though not entirely as stupid as he would pretend . Hillary probably pulled more underhanded schemes than he did ( if thats even possible ) , including entertaining terrorist groups in the White House . The information is out there -why hide your head in the sand ?Maybe the deaf college student thinks Clinton is good looking ..gag.. but George W. Bush is very good looking and doesn't look like he had 15 cheeseburgers too many .

Answer 4

I think you need to read the news a bit more closely. Bush, like everyone else, thought the WMD's were there. Iraq refused to compley with UN mandates and refused to allow full inspections. Further Hussein is a blood thirsty tyrant who tortured his own people in horrible ways. The U.S. took action, not Bush. The action was authorized by Congress. The U.S. was joined by a number of other countries, also convinced that it needed to be done. Hussein is out, Iraq is on the road to democracy. It's been bumpy, but look at our own journey to deomocracy, and realize that ours was a bit bumpty too. Clinton on the other hand disgraced the office with his sexual games, and the commited purjury by lieing about it. If you can't see the difference, please don't breed.

Answer 5

It's pretty simple.....Clinton lied to a grand jury and Bush hasn't lied. The president has no "personal" life and is held accountable for all he does. It's not ok for Clinton to have low moral, have sex with someone other than his wife and then lie about it. Especially to a grand jury. However, Bush hasn't lied or committed a crime. There have been WMD's found and there's well documented facts that Al Qaeda had ties in Iraq. Also, IF you know anything about our government, you'd know that Congress had to vote for us to go to war. They had the same reports that the president did and agreed with him. That includes Hillary and Kerry. Therefore, if they impeached Bush for war, they'd have to charge themselves as well.

I suggest you quit watching Springer and get better informed and educated.

Answer 6

Radical Republicans would hang Clinton for such things.
But, this is the difference.
Republicans have the money. They are for big business and they can do anything and get by with it. Remember if your rich enough you can get by with murder. Literally!
Democrats are poor people and don't have that kind of money behind them to persue the Republicans and they know it.
What is so supriseing to me is that the Religions back the Republicans. One of the reasons on the Forbes list of richest men in America all the preachers who get good enough to preach on TV are on there. So it is not supriseing they back the people who rob from the poor to give to the rich.
Remember when Jesus was on earth the religious leaders the pharasees did the same thing. Only Jesus comdemed them for it. The religious leaders today would be the first in line to say kill him, meaning Jesus.

Answer 7

Clinton lied... to a grand jury... that's something you don't do... even if you are the President. If he just would have admitted that he got a hummer from a fat chick there would have been nothing anyone could have done about it.

BTW... Why did everyone say "it's his personal life.. move on (dot org) and leave him alone.... but when there is an "R" next to his name it's the most horrific thing ever seen and they should resign. (not to mention the other Dems that have been seen with male prostitutes)

I agree with you on the Bush thing though (and I'm an independant conservative) (cuz both parties suck a ss) we have the most sophisticated equipment in the world... and nobody with the balls to use them. instead we send our kids in there for hand to headband conflicts and combat. They are supposed to go in last and do the clean up.... not be the first line of defense. Use air power and use it now.

Answer 8

The short answer is "Bill Clinton deserved impeachment, while George Bush does not."

Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the Congress, but acquitted by the Senate. He was brought up on charges of perjury (lying while under oath in court) and obstruction of justice. Hardly Presidential behavior.

George Bush may have stirred up his opponents with the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but nevertheless his administration convinced the entire world that they were there. His evidence was as sound as a President needs to wage a war. Saddam was a tyrant. Iraq was dangerous. There is no evidence that he was lying. Period.

You may be interested to know that just because we didn't find any, doesn't mean that they weren't hidden, or transported elsewhere. In fact, we DID find some rockets equipped to carry chemical weapons, and Saddam Hussein DID have a record of using chemical weapons on his own citizens. That sounds like evidence to me.

That's why.

Answer 9

You forget that the Neoconservative Republicans went on the attack with a long term all out campaign against Democrats that was vicious, pervasive, overt, covert and deep. They spent billions going after Democrats in any way that they could, including Clinton.

They fooled the American people with designated terms, name calling and filth. They wiretapped celebrities and got people's focus off of protecting American democracy. People couldn't help but to believe a lot of it. Now we know how filthy the Republicans, themselves have proven to be.

Right now it's important to make sure that the Republicans don't win this year and that Americans can put a stop to the Republican's covert activities that debase US all politicians. The long term objective of Republicans is to dismantle the American way of government completely and permanently. Your focus should be to demand that volunteer computer experts scrutinize and monitor the machines from this day forward. Write everywhere with that message.

Don't let the Republicans confuse you now! Help Save America!

Answer 10

It's called the "Double Standard."

When Clinton was in office he had a Republican Congress that tiried to crucify him since the day he was innagurated.

Now, Bush, on the other hand has gotten a free ride from his Republican Congress that would never even consider impeaching him, even if we was proven to be the mass murderer that millions upon millions of us Americans think he truly is.