when they assumed Clinton apparently did in investigations in the 90s with even less proof than Bush has against him now...
Bush has abramoff links, iraqi intelligence questions and more...
what crimes were the Repulbicans investigating anyway exactly in the 90s...
I'm talking about before he lied to investigators of course... which was a crime... granted... but that wasn't what the investigation was about... was it?
2006-11-13 03:55:06 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
but... there was no evidence against Clinton of illegal activity when the investigations started... so that's not apparently needed for an investigation?
or is it just needed for a Republican president?
2006-11-13 03:59:07 · update #1
hardtimes: hahaha... but that's just accusations... there are plenty of Bush accusations too... I guess anyone could say Bush "destoryed the evidence" for any number of things liberals say he did...
2006-11-13 04:02:58 · update #2
I'll state this again... perhaps liberals "assume he has" because they are following the Republican playbook of assuming the leader of the other party must be invesigated for anything possible?
(see Clinton for an example)
2006-11-13 04:05:59 · update #3
dakota295: but wouldn't Hillary have been brought up on charges for that... isn't that a crime?
I mean when Republicans start talking about the "facts" of Whitewater, they all of a sudden sound like the 9-11 conspiracy theorists talking about the "facts" of 9-11... I don't really buy either of them...
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/23/starr.report/
2006-11-13 04:21:14 · update #4
Robert S... I'm not saying he has committed a crime... but I see a lot of simiarities personally... between Republican actions in the 90s and possible Democratic actions in 2007... and charges wouldn't be known until investigations are done...if they are done at all...
2006-11-13 04:25:43 · update #5
No the original investigations had to do with some failed real estate dealings and went from there to encompass everything that the Clinton's did for the previous 20 years. It was modern day witch hunt. People that support Bush do not endorse reality, for before he even became president he had several more shady dealings that he was directly involved in. He was investigated by the SEC and had those records sealed , several oil companies that failed, it is just too many things to put here. As for his presidency he has continually violated the Constitution and pushed the limits of executive powers. Now that the Democratic Party is in power their should be several investigations. The evidence that led up to the war, Halliburton, illegal wiretapping, Guantanamo, 9/11, holding American without charging them. Bush deserves to be in prison not the White House.
2006-11-13 04:07:53 · answer #1 · answered by Frank R 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well... there is the assumtion of innocence until convicted (or at least indicted) enjoyed by all Americans. And as best as I know... the US Congress has not yet brought charges against President Bush (Articles of Impeachment).
Okay, now you mention two things: Jack Abrahmoff and the Pre-war Intelligence Issue. Now please state the CRIME ?!?
The crimes being investigated against the Clinton Administration were trading fraud, insider trading, and land speculation... originally against Hillary.
The investgation expanded when Hillary withheld information and destroyed evidence... leading to the White House Travel Office Investigation.
THEN there were the legal proceedings against President Clinton for sexual harassment, assault, and even rape... Bill tried to use the power of the Presidency to STOP those investigations and proceedings (settling many out of court with big money and secrecy clauses)... which then led to further reports or improper behavior... and then to the imfamous information on thongs, pizza, cigars and a little blue dress with DNA.
Which led to testimony before a Grand Jury... and OOOPS... a charge of Perjury. Of course, the Senate killed the impeachment proceedings to save the Nation further embarassment and scandal.
Now, since the Dem's have control of Congress... we might have some investigations of the Bush Administration.
BUT... until they bring forth indictments with evidence... he hasn't committed a crime... legally.
2006-11-13 04:18:00 · answer #2 · answered by mariner31 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush has committed a crime. He passed the military commissions act of 2006 without going through all the proper steps. He created a committee with a select few people and within those few passed a law giving our government the right to invade our homes, take away anyone they please, and detain them in jail for as long as they see fit. And the kicker to this all, is the person detained does NOT have the right to an attorney. Look it up and do some research, you'll be shocked at what you will find. This law goes against the constitution and all the benefits of being an American. We are not free, we are just pawns in a game awaiting our fate.
2006-11-13 04:11:07 · answer #3 · answered by dolly 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The difference between the two is that all of the possible links to Bush are still alive, not so with Clinton. Everything that you have listed for Bush is circumstancial and politicized, nothing concrete to actually suggest any crime. In this country, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Let's have a real basis for a crime to begin with, okay?
2006-11-13 04:12:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because as hard as the haters spew their hatred no one has given any proof. I actually kind of like Bill Clinton I didn't and wouldn't vote for him, but I think he has soul. Most of the criminal activity in that family looked like it came from Hillary not Bill. I wish he had told the truth because no one could have brought him up on charges, and they could have focused on the misuse of power by Hillary. Check out the facts, Hillary did have Vince Fosters body moved before any investigation could be started.
2006-11-13 04:11:29 · answer #5 · answered by dakota29575 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Vince Foster...need more be said about the Clintons? Bush is dangerously close to doing the same things that the last President did who had Cheney and Rumsfeld on his staff. Do you know who that President was? Richard Milhous Nixon...speaking of wire taps.
2006-11-13 04:05:29 · answer #6 · answered by happygogilmore2004 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why do liberals assume President Bush commited war crimes
2006-11-13 03:58:13 · answer #7 · answered by nbr660 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Why do Liberals consider he has. Must 9/11 go unchecked?
2006-11-13 04:03:52 · answer #8 · answered by robert m 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm not a conservative and I can't say he committed any crimes- I don't personally care for how he is running our country and his speeches I think are a bit insulting to others however I can't say he committed any crimes
2006-11-13 04:00:11 · answer #9 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We're not assuming anything. Liberals are convinced that he DID commit crimes and so far they don't have any evidence for it except the "Bush lied" canard.
2006-11-13 03:57:42 · answer #10 · answered by C = JD 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋