But when we had proof in the case of Clinton it was not a crime? I personally don't care what a man does in private but when he was caught, he should have told the truth. Bush has not committed any crimes.
2006-11-13 03:47:24 · 16 answers · asked by dakota29575 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
True, Bush has not committed any crimes. Libs are steaming mad that they have been out of power so long. They're also mad that Bush accomplished what they wanted to do but did not: topple Saddam.
2006-11-13 03:49:36 · answer #1 · answered by C = JD 5 · 5⤊ 6⤋
Its all political games of one upmanship. I can one up on you because . . . . . .
There has always been a duel standard, as mentioned about Bill Clinton. There always will be this kind of party fighting until the American people say we have had enough!!!
My issue now is that in the paper today, in big print, " Democrats set to push for early withdrawal from Iraq."
Who will take the blame when we are forced to pull out, and something big happens over here??? It will be just like the lying comments, its OK for them, their liberal, but don't let the conservatives get caught doing it.
The government was suppose to be " by the people and for the people". That has long since been trashed, its only for the elect few, the politicians, who make the rules, get rich, and screw over the working people.
2006-11-13 11:57:41 · answer #2 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I do believe lying to congress and the american people is a crime, no matter who does it.
And yes, Clinton did lie to congress and to the american people, and he was impeached for it. The verdict in the impeachment wasn't that he was innocent, it was that the crime was not serious enough to remove him from office.
How can you state so positively that bush has not committed any crimes? Do you know what he knew in private compared to what he said to congress and publicly? No, you don't. There is a great deal of evidence that *indicates* he has indeed lied to both many times, but there is yet no proof. And there won't be unless there is a full investigation -- his republican congress has blocked that for six years. The new democratic congress needs to decide if pursuing such an investigation is worth the time and expense, or if they should concentrate on fixing his messes rather than prosecuting him.
2006-11-13 11:54:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
He swore on a bible to preserve and defend the constitution, yet has been subverting it by restricting our First Amendment rights by not allowing protesters to come to his rallies, our Fourth Amendment rights by engaging in wiretaps and physical searches without a warrant, and just recently signed a bill passed by the Republican congress which allows him to selectively determine who is eligible to receive a trial by jury and who he can imprison indefinitely without a trial or even being charged. This right, known as Habeas Corpus, has been part of our law system since before our country was even founded. In fact it goes back all the way to the Magna Carta of 1215.
He broke his oath, just as Clinton broke his oath to tell the truth under oath during his Paula Jones testimony. Both are crimes, and if the latter is an impeachable offense, than the former certainly is as well.
2006-11-13 11:56:07 · answer #4 · answered by Guelph 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I hear you, and I agree. The real issue is that Bush won the presidency (both times) by a slim margin. What this really means is that even at the time which he was elected and re-elected, nearly half of the country wanted him out of office. I imagine that on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, every Democrat leader in the nation was saying “Thank (I won’t say “God” because they are truly Godless heathens) my lucky stars that I am not the president today!”
Keep the faith…it can only get better from here.
2006-11-13 12:10:13 · answer #5 · answered by Maddog Salamander 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Typical liberal hypocrisy... Clinton is caught lying under oath, and they run to protect him. Bush relies on intelligence reports that were corroborated by the intelligence agencies in 4 allied nations, and he has somehow "lied".
Further, if he were more forthcoming, and announced his intentions to reform a major nation or three in the Middle East, Muslims there would unite and fight far harder than they have, leading to more American serviceman and -women dying far from home. Apaprently, that's the price Liberals are willing to pay to embarrass and second-guess the "stupid chimp" who beat them twice.
Yep... Openly announce our battle plans and intentions, and have more American soliders die... THAT'S the way to go! I'm SO glad we elected more of them to office last week.
2006-11-13 11:53:37 · answer #6 · answered by Alan B 2 · 6⤊ 2⤋
You must be kidding!!! Bush has lied about almost everything and not been called for it. WMDs? He lied. Al Quida connection to Iraq? He lied. Warrentless wire taps, again he lied. Who knew the levies would not hold? He did, several days before the storm and then he lied about knowing. His lies have caused the death of thousands while Clinton's lie only hurt himself. When there are finally hearings in Congress to get at the truth We will see who was the biggest liar and who's lies did the most harm and has criminal consequences.
2006-11-13 11:58:47 · answer #7 · answered by diogenese_97 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
There's plenty of evidence: see answers to your previous question.
What Clinton did was unethical, but not illegal. He was impeached and disbarred, but never convicted of any crime. His offense? Getting bj's from an adult intern, then lying about it.
Bush's offenses are potentially much more serious, with much greater consequences.
2006-11-13 11:56:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
i agree with the first answerer. most libs chose to forget that clinton had the same plan but was unable to get it to work. bush 2 had the balls to stand up and do it and i applaud him. the left just want anything to ****** about and will do anything to feel in power again. so they won this round, fine, we will see how much changes for the better when plans start taking effect. they talk big now, they have won for now, but we will all see how messed up things are going to get. substantiate
2006-11-13 11:52:49 · answer #9 · answered by pain_made_me_beautiful 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
If you are so ready to believe propaganda, well congratulations to you.
However, The office of the president is a by the people for the people thing. president is not king, you trying to say, repeatedly as this seems to be your only question, that it is unpatriotic to question the president is un patriotic. Instead of wasting your time with this question, try reading the constitution, try reading about the revolutionary war, try learning something for yourself instead of believing all of this propaganda.
2006-11-13 11:56:58 · answer #10 · answered by Sara 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
... I don't think that liberals don't think it's a crime... first off...
second off... there have been no real investigations into some shady issues under Bush... so how do you know that he didn't commit crimes?
Republicans investigated Clinton for much less and all they could find is personal issues (that weren't illegal) that he lied about (which was illegal...
2006-11-13 11:51:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋