Doesn't Bush deserve to be impeached more than Clinton did?

Question

Reason Clinton was Impeached = Having an affair

Things bush has gotten away with = Lying about WMDs, then going to war in Iraq without approval from the UN. Then on top of that he stays for over a year after Saddam Hussein's regime is over. Over 2000 troops have now died because of him.

Why hasn't Bush been impeached yet?

Answer 1

Lying under oath is why Clinton got impeached. Apparently, lying about getting head is more treasonous and dangerous to the United States than lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Answer 2

First of all you need to get your facts straight, which is a problem with a large majority of the country. Bill Clinton was in danger of getting impeached because he lied under oath, not because he had an affair. As for Bush, with the facts that he had at the time there was reason to believe that there were WMD. We do not need the approval of the UN to declare war. Getting rid of Saddam is not the answer and pulling out of Iraq isn't either. The liberal media presents this issue one-sided and a lot of people in Iraq are grateful that we are there helping them to delete terrorists in their country. Unfortunately it's never reported. I have family in the military....I know. I feel for the ones who have lost their lives protecting our freedom, but they were the ones who chose to protect our country and sometimes going to war is a part of being in the military. It's going to be sad if the democrats take over the White House in a few years because they are going to pull out of Iraq and the country will pay the price.

Answer 3

First off- you just showed how uneducated you are-

Clinton was not impeached because of an affair, He was impeached because he LIED to a grand jury. I think the legal term is Purgery, any other American would have served Jail time for that. Get you facts straight.

The Consitution does not say that the president has to Answer to the United Nations. He took an oath to Protect and uphold the Constitution. If he feels that the best way to do that is to take force against a group of terrorists and Sovreign who are threats to this country- then he should. If the UN does not back the President and he feels that the security of this great nation is at risk, then he SHOULD go against the UN. No entity other than the United States should EVER have a say as to the action our Military takes. That comprimises National Security.

Answer 4

Who feeds you this information? Former President Clinton was NOT impeached for having an affair, but for lying under oath (among other things). Personally, I never cared whom he had an affair with, but would have preferred he had taken her to a Motel 6, rather than the White House. As for not asking the United Nations permission to go to war in Iraq, you are totally misinformed. The United States doesn't have to have the United Nations Permission to do anything.

I realize that many of you are terribly upset that President Bush won't be impeached, but you can't impeach a president because you don't like him. He has not committed an impeachable offense.

Just a note: The only people who seem to be obsessive about Clintons affair (or abuse of power) are liberals. Most of us don't care.

Answer 5

Yes he does. The reason Clinton was impeached was not for having an affair but for lying about it under oath. Bush hasn't been impeached yet because the Republican Congress sees to it that all legal challenges are defused. Take the Valerie Plame outing, for example. Joseph Wilson (Plame's husband) called the Bush administration a bunch of liars about Hussein having WMDs. The Bush administration's response? Commit a serious breach of national security by revealing the name of his wife, a CIA agent. Why Bush, Cheney, and the rest of them on down the line weren't indicted for that one I'll never know, except that they control the congressional investigations. They pick the committee that's supposed to investigate them. How nice. The Democrats need a Ken Starr. This administration has done some incredibly reprehensible things, and those are only the ones we know about. Hopefully, there will be some subpoenas issued once a Democratic House and Senate is in session.

Answer 6

Bush should be impeached.
It goes much deeper than the lying about WMDs.
War crimes in general
Blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States of America for reference read the Patriot Act.
Blatant disregard of the Geneva Convention laws
Murder-directly or indirectly
By the way it's more than 2,900 troops, and that's just USA troops
and I'm not sure if that counts those killed by "friendly fire".
The civilian death toll is estimated from anywhere between 150,000 and 600,000
Add to that toll our allies who have died trying to help us win this war.
And I have yet to see ANY numbers of those enemy insurgents that we have been sent to kill. Do they even keep track of that number?
Is it not a crime to cut the troops loose once they have been wounded, and come home to find out they have been displaced from their job, or that their rightful benefits have been denied.

Answer 7

Nothing you say is true. President Bush did not commit any crimes. Clinton did: lying under oath for one. Remember, he was disbarred as an attorney because of his crime.

Bush did not "lie" about WMD's. When you make a false charge in writing, it is called libel, a civil offense.

The US President did not, and does not, need the "approval" of the UN to do anything. The US is a sovereign nation and has the right to defend itself. The big players in the UN who opposed the US were bought off by Hussein. Those should be criminal acts.

The US is in Iraq to try to prevent civil war, establish a government, and protect Iraqis from attack and takeover by it's neighbors.

The military who died, did so because they were killed by terrorists. Mr. Bush did not kill anyone.

Yahoo! Answers is no place for political hate speech.

Answer 8

i do unlike Bush-yet Clinton did extra suitable than that. He substitute into in extra Greed suitable scandals than i can count type-real no longer caught-yet the place there is countless smoke their is hearth. He allowed the 5 important oil agencies to purchase the smaller ones out-(monopolies a criminal offense)he knew why they needed too, hes an informed guy, now look on the capability they have. Bush does no longer something to end it yet he did no longer initiate it. Clinton did no longer something for wellbeing -his campaign-Gee is it achieveable that the prescribed drugs are assisting him and Hilly with campaign money? %. what form of decision is that--could you like Aids or undesirable maximum cancers?

Answer 9

Two Presidents, The first president initiates a bloody, costly, unending war on false premises and approves covert policies of illegal detentions, kangaroo courts, extraordinary renditions, torture and warrent-less wire-tappings of thousands of Americans. The second president lies about hooking up with an intern. QUESTION - Which one should be impeached? Which one should be supported? Which one should be trashed and thrown away?

Answer 10

The difference is that Clinton lied under oath. Bush has never lied under oath, since he doesn't talk under oath most of the time. Even when the 9/11 Commission interviewed him, he refused to do it under oath after they asked for that. So it would be hard to impeach him for lying.