This has been bothering me, so maybe someone could explain this. Why is it ok to try to impeach a president because he got a bj, but it would be blasphemy to bring charges against an administration who lied to start a false war which has killed thousands of young men and women in the prime of their lives? It just doesn't make sense in my head. That's my opinion anyway.
2006-11-30 09:05:52 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The majority of responses to this question just proves that you can't be an American and say a single thing against Bush without people crying blasphemy!
2006-11-30 09:20:34 · update #1
It's very simple, and it must be kept simple for those who have trouble understanding. Some people cannot face the truth. IMO Bush and his cronies should face impeachment, and be removed from office. Some will say that they would rather have Bush than Cheney for president. Cheney would go down as well, and so would others. Study the 70's, Vietnam, Watergate, Nixon, most of his cronies were removed, so it is possible.
I know, it doesn't make logical sense to me either. Common sense is basically non-existent.
2006-11-30 11:40:48 · answer #1 · answered by Schona 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ultimately it comes down to pragmatism. Impeaching Bush would take over a year, during which time the Democrats won't be able to implement any meaningful corrections to the past 6 years. Even if Bush was convicted and removed from office, Cheney would take office and we'd be even worse off.
And for the record, it's not ok to impeach a president for a bj, though the argument is that he opened himself up to being blackmailed, it could have been a foreign agent, etc.
2006-11-30 09:11:57 · answer #2 · answered by NoGodsNoMasters 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Clinton was being investigated for his clearly criminal actions in the Whitewater scandal. During the course of the investigations Clinton's lawyer obtained a ruling that he could not be tried as a sitting President. During the investigation many of the woman who worked for/with Clinton came forward with similar stories of sexual harassment and abuse.
This lead to the special Prosecutor (whose shorts were admittedly in a bunch as losing the criminal case) to investigate current employees of the President. Unfortunately for Slick Willie he chose to sexually abuse a young employee who kept the dress he left his DNA on and unabashedly described his love of cigars.
Slick Willie, being a politician by nature, did what comes naturally to politicians, he lied. But lying while under oath is a crime, and as a lawyer he knew that.
That being said, Slick Willie is remembered for being impeached for his affair with Monica. Not the criminal activities of Whitewater, or the mystery of Vince Foster's death. Its almost like a wag-the-dog situation.
2006-11-30 09:22:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Ask your Democratic Congressman............because they want to get elected again in 2008.
Bush did nothing that could bring an impeachment. It would be a waste of taxpayers time and dollars.
Should we charge every congressman that voted for war with deriliction of duty, and various war crimes?
Cry me a river!
2006-11-30 09:14:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
i'm thinking...deal with it. i know it sounds harsh but the administration will most likely never be brought to justice over the war...there's so many people involved, they "thought" there were weapons of mass destruction blah de blah...if ever a court case was made it wud drag on for so long it wouldnt matter 2 people nemore
2006-11-30 09:08:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
One has to break the law first.
Clinton lied under oath - known as perjury.
Bush has done nothing illegal.
Stop your Bush bashing, review the information provided prior to the war, and use your brain!
2006-11-30 09:12:17 · answer #6 · answered by LadySable 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Bill Maher, John Stewart, Cobert, and real political analysts have all said the exact same thing. You are absolutely right it does not make sense. I have been saying the exact same thing since the reports came out about the whole Iraq blah blah blah. And for those of you out there who say deal with it. Please come work on the hill and at the White House with me then you'll know why it's not just something to deal with.
2006-11-30 09:09:04 · answer #7 · answered by digitalkitty98 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Clinton lied before a grand jury which is a felony. Bush never lied. Now it should make perfect sense to you.
2006-11-30 09:09:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
For impeachment to take place there has to be proof. There is no lie or proof of a lie, therefore no impeachment. Have a nice day.
Digtalk--You are saying that liberal comedians are right. Who is the misguided one. John Stewart, Colbert! You cant be serious.
2006-11-30 09:13:52 · answer #9 · answered by only p 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
They have already claimed they were mis-informed by the security apparatus. No one has the balls to demand an investigation because there is enough blame to go around for everyone involved.
2006-11-30 09:11:21 · answer #10 · answered by Sophist 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋