Which is a better reason to impeach a President?

Question

Lying about a sexual affair.
Or lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Answer 1

Bush lies - under oath or not. No one died when Clinton lied under oath.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic that, "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." � President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." � Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." � CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." � President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." � President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." � President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." � Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet our own intelligence reports show that these stocks � if they existed � were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." � Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." � President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were are potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts � including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week � have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were, facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves

Answer 2

Bush lied
people died.

Bush should be impeached. He has promoted his ambition of Iraq on false pretences. In 1997 The Project of the New American Century (Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Jeb Bush) wrote a letter to the Clinton administration to over take Iraq. They said it was a failed regime and the country has the 2nd largest oil reserves. This is an indication and reason for the oil hungry Bush administration to compete with the world in securing resources. National interest or lining the pockets of his buddies at the expence of thousands of lives?
Clinton just wanted some fun.

Answer 3

a million. A president would not choose congress' o.k. to apply the protection rigidity, it fairly is why we call the president "the commander in chief." Intel stated there exchange into reason to make a preemptive strike (Dems theory so too). 2. the protection rigidity operates with a distinctive set of legal regulations. 3. i do unlike human beings detained for free of value, with none date of value and so on. yet accrued information must be in place. we are doing what we can to be better than our history (jap camps, submit to in ideas?). 4. regulations of engagement are clearer than what you think of. i think of incidental is distinctive than concentrated. 5. while you're growing to be communiqué from a terrorist group, I specific anticipate you to describe why. My telephone isn't tapped, i don't get calls from people who % to do mass homicide in my country. 6. Too imprecise. 7. provide me a ruin, if the properly suited fairly have been doing this, do you think of for a 2d that the congress could be crammed with DEMs spectacular now? Use your logic. 8. ?????? greater ambiguity. did not divulge the CIA op. 9. maximum of this element is purely out of the left container. ask your self if the president had complete authority over all, could you be allowed to talk approximately this? And 2d so some distance is your element #3. 10. If a president swoops in and takes administration, subverting the administration of the state, then you certainly could have a actual concern. word how little courtroom cases you hear from Ala, pass over, Fla approximately Katrina reaction? it fairly is because of the fact those states acted "positioned up-haste," in soliciting for by way of appropriate channels, the federal government to help. l. a.. did not. playstation if there have been something to question, wager your backside dollar they had be doing it already!

Answer 4

Clearly lying about sex is a more serious affair. Getting some in the White House has always upset the Republicans, and there preoccupation with getting to "the bottom of it" displays their kinky preoccupations. War and mayhem is just boys will be boys, and not something to be tampered with. But bj's in the Oval Office are too delicious to pass up. After all, Republicans are the party of Values, and theirs are clearly showing now.

Answer 5

How about giving secret military technology to America's enemies? (Clinton) How about letting a known terrorist and murderer of American citizens get away ? (Clinton)
Which of the 10,000 artillery shells with serin and biological residue did you choose to ignore?. WHat about all those documents which show that a lot of those WMDs got shipped to Syria? Do you really think all those thousands of Kurds and Iranians died of hangnails or head colds?
Stop being such a dumbocrat stooge! You have a better mind than that!! Use it!

Answer 6

OMG! People...Clinton was impeached with the official reason being that "he provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony
to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and that he had obstructed justice through an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case."

So my friends...yes it was in a round about way regarding his handling of the trial regarding his sexual affairs.

As far as dubya and his lying about wmd in order to go to war to finish off his daddys job that is worth impeachment.

Answer 7

Bush has yet to be put under oath. Too bad, he'd commit an impeachable offense in a nanosecond.

He's an opportunistic liar.

Answer 8

If I was a republican I would say a sexual affair because it was a democrat that did it. and that bush did not lie. So predictable. Since im not either I would say the the second one is worse.

Answer 9

Neither one of those choices are even factual, so flip a coin.

And am I the only one that has seen this question like 5 billion times, now?

And no matter how many times perjury and sexual harrassment is explained, and no matter how many times we tell you that Clinton is implicated in any 9-11 inquiry, you will not learn.

Answer 10

Neither.

The best reason to impeach a President is for lying under oath - about something important - like an oath to "Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic" and then turning around and gutting that very document with scurrilous "Signing Statements"

Answer 11

Clinton did both, if you consider the statements about WMDs a "lie."