My Previous question was basically President Clinton was put in the public eye about his private life and yes, he did lie and therefore he was impeached, but wouldn't President Bush's lie about weapons in Iraq be considered grounds for impeachment?
2007-01-26 10:51:08 · 26 answers · asked by Jenn 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
It is all relative to who is in charge in Congress. The Clinton impeachment was a waste of time and millions of dollars just because he had a little "fun" with another consenting adult and then lied about it. Hey, if any man were caught doing that he would probably lie. What was the big deal? It is because he would not let the Neocon controlled Congress intimidate him.
Bush is a criminal for sure because what he did and is doing is causing the loss of thousands of lives unlike Clinton who caused embarassment to himself and his family and to the families of the bimbos he messed with.
Bush and the Neocon Congresses have so screwed things up it will take the full 2 years of this Congress to straighten things out. They won't have time for impeachment.
Impeachment takes time and money. The money is all going to Iraq and since Bush has less than 2 years to go by the time all that was said and done and we went after Cheney too Pelosi would only be President for a few months. Hardly worth the effort.
Notice that Dubya is backing down on much of his smug, arrogant, stubborn position. The Nov. election sent the message loud and clear that the rubber stamp is out and oversight is in.
2007-01-26 11:03:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Bush lied his *** off about many things, the WMD fable being the most egregious. But since he didn't do it under oath, it is not a crime.
He has committed other impeachable crimes though, including violating the Geneva Conventions and the United States law the "War Crimes Act."
So he is definitely impeachable, the question is, is there enough political will among the Democrats to do it. The sad truth is that while most American despise Bush and consider him a liar, they don't want to Congress to have to go through the partisan process the GOP forced us to go through during the Clinton administration.
Bush will go down in history as one of the worst American Presidents ever. Isn't that punishment enough? Remember when "San Francisco liberal" was an epithet, because we opposed the war? Well, guess who is running Congress now?
2007-01-27 06:07:49 · answer #2 · answered by barringtonbreathesagain 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He voted with the rest of the senate and congress when they all voted to go in against Saddam. The info he recieved was the same as theirs- personally I'm quite sure Saddam had them but they were destoyed or hidden, and I don't much mind that we helped the countrty rid itself of a murdering tyrant. A President of the USA is not a ruler- his decisions are linked with the rest of the governing body. As for Clinton,very well spoken but he represented America and should be, morally and in his marrige the best of the best. I didn't agree with all of his decisions of Presidency either- no one is ever completely right or wrong-but his disrespect of the White House and this country was disgusting.
PS-he was not impeached, the group that studied it or tried to did not have enough "impeachment" issues to do so......
2007-01-26 11:07:21 · answer #3 · answered by ARTmom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Clinton lied UNDER OATH! Bush didn't lie. When every nation on the earth and the entire congress had the same intel Mr.Bush had, how could it be a lie? Do you have some proof that the years and years of intelligence gathered by several nations around the world was all fabricated by Bush? I didn't think so. Wouldn't the fact that some weapons were found, admittedly not the quantity that we thought he had, would that not prove he didn't lie? Believe it or not, some weapons were found.
2007-01-26 10:58:10 · answer #4 · answered by Chester's Liver 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not just his lie about WMDs but almost every other thing that comes out of his mouth is either a lie or a smoke-screen covering up what we most often already know. Sure it's grounds, but check out www.smirkingchimp.com and see all the other things that would make impeachment a possible approach to dealing with this administration's heavy-handedness.
2007-01-26 10:59:32 · answer #5 · answered by MJ D 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
all and sundry who initially supported the belief of the Iraqi conflict (consisting of the Clintons, John Kerry, and a great form of alternative Democrats) have been performing upon the concepts given to us by utilising President Bush and his administration. i do no longer think of they have been lots incorrect as they have been so lifeless set on being top. i think of that Iraq became a manner for Bush to rally help on an identical time as on an identical time no longer pursuing actual terrorist threats like Bin encumbered and the Al Queda cells. i think of he tried to make an entire united states have faith that Iraq became a terrorist threat to usa and it purely wasn't authentic. yet even putting that aside, the way he's skirted around the concern of the fired judges and what he and Gonzales would have had to do with it... the guy is inherently cheating. And what enrages me extra is that the folk who nonetheless help him gain this with the aid of fact they suspect he's a Godly guy and packed with integrity. i do no longer think of he's Godly and the only element he's packed with is a observe that Yahoo will censor on me.
2016-11-01 09:14:57 · answer #6 · answered by herrick 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
His lies and his friends lies are grounds for him to be imprisoned (at the very least).
Plus, Clinton got Israel mad by not inviting someone to the White house dinner, and that is why they broke the Monica Lewinsky story. Jews control the US media and are a majority in Bush's government. And yet they are a religious minority over here in the USA. And the US is attacking almost all middleastern countries. Hmm. And war is profitable to some people. Hmm!
2007-01-26 11:00:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is a HUGE difference...1st GW was misled by faulty intel and even if he wasnt...he was not under oath and penalty of perjury...Clinton lied to save his but in a civil matter he was being sued on. He took the oath to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth...and didnt...if you or I did it we would have been doing a year at club fed for PERJURY..a crime...lying to the people on TV is NOT a crime....he was not prosecuted for pointing his finger at america and saying..I did not sleep with that woman...he was telling the truth...he just got a hummer...he didnt sleep...anyway...like it or not...politicians lie to us EVERY DAY..and unless under oath...it is no crime.
2007-01-26 11:08:08 · answer #8 · answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can you believe there are people in the US who don't know or don't believe or both; that Clinton got impeached. We are living amongst ignorant savages who's only concern is whats on TV and whats to eat.
2007-01-26 10:59:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need to educate yourself regarding the circumstances. The President acted on faulty intelligence information he received. It began with a British spy who later committed suicide. There was no willful intent to lie to the people, so there is no impeachable offense.
2007-01-26 10:56:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋