evidence to make a case for war that has cost over $400,000,000,000 so far, over 3000 soldiers deaths, over 20,000 wounded, collateral damage reaching 7 digits, plundging a country into civil war, and removing Iran's only two checks on power is considered absurd conservatives here. What would you consider a multimillion dollar investigation and resulting impeachment of Clinton for lying about cheating on his wife? Does anyone not catch the hypocrisy?
2007-03-21 04:25:39 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
But, DS, you are forgetting that the Clinton "thing" was about MORALS !!! And morals are the backbone of the religious right that IS the superstructure OF the present administration !!!
I mean, don't you see where a (dare I even say the word) "sexual" thing---is FAR worse than throwing a whole region into chaos and daily bloodbaths !!! And, lying under oath--- my God--- even if it was to try a last ditch effort to have the "affair" not effect his relationship and his family --- is FAR worse than lying to the entire country and taking it into a years long unwinable Trillon dollar fiasco that has the entire nation twisting in its own juices while the debt load stacks up on a generation five times removed from the present day !!!!
You need to get to church DS and let the ministers there get you "clued into the right frame of mind" here !! It is quite evident to me that you are in need of some serious "indoctrinization" into the "new" American way of thought processes !! The process that says -- whatever the Dictator says is the absolute ONLY way to BE AMERICAN !!!
Especially if he is Republican and more especially if he is (or has claimed to be ) Christian !!!!
I just can't let this stand--- I've heard about as much of this "no evidence " crap as I can handle------THE REASON THERE IS NO ACCESSIBLE EVIDENCE IS BECAUSE THE FREAKING PATRIOT ACT AND THE BOGUS LAWS PAST TO PROTECT THIS COVERT "NATIONAL SECURITY" GARBAGE ----KEEPS THE EVIDENCE SEALED FROM ACCESSIBILITY---- THAT'S WHY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE --- IT HAS BEEN BURIED UNDER NATIONAL SECURITY CRAP !!!!!
2007-03-21 04:52:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Consider the differences.
1. An investigation into whether evidence was manipulated is essentially a witch hunt. There has been no credible proof offered that this may be the case. The Democrats may say this, but it is a political charge, rather than anything based on evidence.
2. Clinton was not impeached for lying. He was impeached for lying IN COURT, UNDER OATH, and for Obstructing Justice. This is an unacceptable action of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the country. It was not during an investigation that he did this, it was during a trial for his sexual harassment of a state employee when he was Governor of Arkansas. The impeachment came about BECAUSE of his crime.
Vast difference to the unjaundiced eye.
2007-03-21 11:43:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A. Saddam Hussein was public enemy #1 under Clinton, so what changed as soon as Bush took office?
B. ALL leading democrats supported military action against Iraq. Do you REALLY need me to cut and paste their quotes? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1051684/posts
C. They have found several caches of chemical weapons in Iraq! But to liberals, I guess 20 year old chemical weapons don't count.
D. Full scale invasion and defeat of the middle easts 2nd largest military with only 3000 US casualities over a 4-year period? More people are murdered per year in the United States!
E. Clinton LIED under oath. Bush has done no such thing.
Email if you want to discuss this further! Bottom line is that if there was a case for impeachment against Bush then people like Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, and all the other blowhards would have done it by now. Even THEY know it's not realistic. BOTTOM LINE is that Bush is doing exactly what nearly 60 million Americans elected him to do. And if people change their views, their minds, and their beliefs before his 4 years is up then it's THEIR fault.
2007-03-21 11:40:43 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ah, the Republicans didn't investigate Clinton.
Kenneth Starr was appointed by a three judge panel at the request of Janet Reno in 1994.
You do remember, in 1994, we had a Democrat Congress.
Im not saying the Republicans didn't enjoy the Starr investigation, but they didn't start it.
2007-03-21 12:22:33 · answer #4 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
get your facts straight idiot. Clinton wasn't impeached he was acquitted. and the intelligence that the president received was misleading, it wasn't W's fault. and besides that I'm glad they killed Hussein and are trying to give the people of that country a chance, because he was not only killing his own people but also helping terrorists, you know the kind of people that flew big planes into our building. why do people like you just come on here and ask questions to which you have no knowledge of? it makes you sound like a moron
2007-03-21 11:36:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you democrats should learn another tune. President Bush is not able to run again. The election is less than two years away. How about telling everyone what the democrats intend to do if they win? Or is this it?
2007-03-21 11:55:09 · answer #6 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whats wrong with collateral damage?
2007-03-21 11:29:30 · answer #7 · answered by Carpe diem 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
2007-03-21 11:30:14 · answer #8 · answered by Peter Pumpkin Eater 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋