MORE impeachable offenses committed - Bush or Clinton?

Answer 1

That's easy. Clinton. Bush hasn't done anything wrong!

Answer 2

respond to VOTINGISUSELESS: the CIA style of torture would not harm the guy by any ability. Waterboarding in simple terms drips water down the guy for below 30 seconds, yet by some ability makes the guy sense like they are drowning. it quite is an affective device that basically reasons some soreness to the sufferer. It has labored very effectively on interrogation and it would not call for inhumane acts. additionally if Bush is undesirable then all of the ecu international places are undesirable. Britan France and so on. all have 1000's of cameras throughout their us of a spying on their finished us of a. additionally no bush isn't committing impeachable offenses respond to NO TO D: Andrew Jackson. He disobeyed hid accountability as president. whilst the final courtroom ordered that the Cherokee us of a ought to no longer be relocated via Georgia Andrew Jackson did no longer something to resign the human beings of Georgia. And interior the consititution it states that the president is had to uphold the regulations of the form.

Answer 3

So far only Clinton and Johnson have actually gone through the impeachment process. So that should tell you something.
I Cr 13;8a
10-14-6

Answer 4

GWBush has taken more grief for trying to protect you and your family, it's almost downright embarrassing to read this question.

Clinton did nothing to protect you and your family from the Islamic radicals' threats - apparently he was either too busy playing golf or worrying about his legacy.

Yeah, let's impeach him - then we can convert to Islam and this cycle of ignorance will be complete.

Answer 5

Clinton did not commit any crimes.
He was with a grown adult and the only one he cheated on was Hillary.

George Bush is a murderer.

Answer 6

Clinton

Lieing under oath
Allowing nuclear secrets to be stolen by the Chinese
The fiasco in Somalia
Whitewater
over 40 unexplained/mysterious deaths related to Whitewater
eating puppies (unsubstantiated but highly suspected)
Lack of response to repeated terrorist attacks against the U.S.

Answer 7

Bush, but we like the oil

Answer 8

Lets tally them up:

Clinton: 1

Bush: 0

That would be a win for WJC. (Although I can't blame a guy for lying about an affair, he was a lawyer and knew the bitchslap he'd get from Hillary was way less than the sentence for whitewater if he could have been tried for that.)

Answer 9

Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House?
Christopher Ruddy
Thursday, June 6, 2002
Osama Bin Laden Invited to the White House!
Now that sounds more than far-fetched. And certainly President Bush would rather see bin Laden's head on a platter than to have him as a dinner guest.

But a senior former CIA agent who served in the Middle East for almost two decades fighting terrorists thinks that bin Laden may believe that, like fellow terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, he may find himself someday a guest of a future U.S. president.

This former CIA officer, Robert Baer, recently wrote the explosive book "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism."

Baer writes that when he sees Arafat "standing in the Rose Garden at the White House or when I hear that a CIA director has met privately with him at some desert tent, I wonder sometimes if Arafat's example doesn't make Osama bin Laden consider that he, too, might become a statesman in time."

Baer's point seems fantastic. However, we now know for a certainty that Arafat has masterminded and backed too many terrorist acts to count, from the Munich massacre to jet hijackings and worse.

A veteran of the Mideast, Baer knows Arafat. Baer writes that while "terrorist organizations operate like the most complicated interlocking directorate ever created," he discovered that many of the trails of these groups and their activities "converge at the feet of Yasser Arafat."

Yet today our liberal media prefer to describe Arafat as a freedom fighter. Baer's observations are deemed politically incorrect.

That may be one reason his book, with many important revelations, with a foreword by Seymour Hersh and published by Random House, has gotten such little media attention since it hit bookstores earlier this year.

Perhaps a companion book might have been titled: "Speak No Evil: Why A Veteran CIA Officer Should Keep His Mouth Shout About How Bill Clinton Undermined America's National Security."

While Baer fairly criticizes problems in the CIA and its handling of terrorism from the days of the Reagan and Bush administrations, he also clearly shows that the infrastructure of the CIA's ability to fight terrorism completely collapsed under Bill Clinton.

Here are just some of Baer's key points:

In 1991, the CIA closed up its activities in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. During the Clinton years things got even worse, when CIA operatives around the globe were directed away from spying on the bad guys and told to start worrying about "human rights, economic globalization, the Arab-Israel conflict." By 1995, the Clinton administration thought spy operations were so unimportant that a CIA analyst who had never served as a spy or even overseas was made director of operations, the CIA's chief spy.

Iran remains a major player in the terrorist world. Baer says that in 1982, Arafat "had put his entire worldwide terrorist network at Iran's disposal." Baer believes that the Iranians were clearly the culprits behind the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in the early 1980s. In 1996, bin Laden formed an alliance with Iran. The purpose of the alliance was simple: Attack America.

The Clinton White House's gross negligence and malfeasance was demonstrated by its handling of Saddam Hussein. Baer states that in 1995, top staffers at the National Security Council prevented a planned coup by Iraqi military leaders against Saddam Hussein. Baer was the top CIA man in Northern Iraq working with Iraqi dissidents.
Baer also reveals just how much the Clinton White House sought to protect Hussein.
In 1995 Baer was summoned by the CIA back from Iraq to Washington. Upon reporting to CIA headquarters, a CIA superior told him why he was called home: "Tony Lake [Bill Clinton's national security adviser] ordered the FBI to investigate you for trying to assassinate Saddam Hussein."

After months of investigation, the charges were found to be baseless and dropped.

Like many other CIA veterans who were thwarted from doing their jobs by their own government, Baer retired. Still, the CIA gave him due recognition. He was awarded its Career Intelligence Medal.

But the coddling of Hussein was not isolated to just targeting Baer and removing him from Iraq.

In fact, the Clinton White House clearly decided to keep and maintain Saddam Hussein in power. [Note: I suspected this back in 1998 and wrote about it in "Maybe Saddam Actually Likes Bill Clinton."]

In one of the most important revelations in "See No Evil," Baer reveals that Saddam Hussein might well have been deposed by his own troops, especially if the economic sanctions had been rigorously applied.

But with U.S. complicity, Saddam Hussein was able to sell millions of barrels of Iraqi oil by shipping them overland through NATO ally Turkey.

During the mid-'90s Baer says, the smuggled oil through Turkey "was a lifeline for Saddam, who used the money to fund his intelligence services and Special Republican Guards – the forces that kept him alive."

The pipeline of smuggled oil was no hidden, disputed fact. Baer reports the Iraqi oil trucks stretched back anywhere from 20 miles to 70 miles as they waited to cross into Turkey.

Baer was baffled. He writes, "What I couldn't understand was why the White House didn't intervene." He says the U.S. could easily have closed down the truck pipeline into Turkey.

"It was almost as if the White House wanted Saddam to have a little walking around money," Baer writes.

Baer concludes that the Clinton administration "helped Saddam pay for his praetorian guard, just what you'd expect of a clever superpower that was secretly supporting the local despot."

Why would Bill Clinton, our president, do such a thing? Why would he help Saddam Hussein at the very time his public rhetoric against him was so strong?

Nobody who has studied Bill Clinton should be surprised by his duplicity. The facts show, and future historians will discover, that Bill Clinton was no friend of the United States.

Editor's Note: Get your copy of "See No Evil" at a great price –

Answer 10

bush for sure!