How is it different that Bush lies to us about Iraq, and Clinton lies about his sexual affairs?

Question

It is well known that Iraq had not one thing to do with 9/11. Never proved yet Clinton is impeached and Bush goes unpunished

Answer 1

Bush currently claims we are in Iraq because of Al Queerda, his lifelong cocaine partner that owes him so off we go.

Answer 2

The difference is that Clinton lied under oath about a personal issue after being hounded with investigations by the rethug Congress for most of his presidency which led to impeachment.

Bush has refused to testify under oath or answer any questions and has not been investigated up to now by the previous Republican Congresses. This should change as many Democratic led committees are now putting together investigations and subpoenas against Bush for his lies about Iraq, about wire tapping, about what he knew before 9/11, etc., etc. Hopefully, Bush will not go unpunished but I am not optimistic because Nixon and Reagan were unpunished for their Watergate and Iran Contra crimes respectively.

Answer 3

You're comparing apples to oranges. If Bush got a bj in the oval office I'd say "who cares". If he lied about it to a grand jury tried to suborn perjury and he committed perjury I WOULD care. THOSE ARE CRIMES. A proper comparison is how do the lies Willy told to get us into Kosovo differ from Bush's lies to get us into Iraq.

Clinton on 3/24/99: ... "By acting now, we are upholding our values, protecting our interests and advancing the cause of peace ... Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative. It is also important to America's national interests ... am convinced that the dangers of acting are far outweighed by the dangers of not acting – dangerous to defenseless people and to our national interests ... 'over a million Kosovars' and had killed and raped 'thousands upon thousands of them.'
According to USA Today on 7/1/99: Many of the figures used by the Clinton administration and NATO to describe the wartime plight of Albanians in Kosovo now appear greatly exaggerated as allied forces take control of the province ...
Months after the bombing has ceased, United Nations and European Union investigations have bolstered what critics had argued: NATO's estimates of Serbian genocide against the Kosovars were greatly overblown. Many observers now think the inflated numbers simply were part of the U.S.-led propaganda effort to build support for the war.
The latest evidence suggests that fewer than 3,000 Kosovars were murdered – horrifying, yes, but not many more than the number of Serbs who were killed by NATO bombing attacks on Yugoslavia, roughly estimated between 3,000 and 5,000 soldiers and civilians.
Does this mean that Clinton "lied, people died"? The intelligence turned out to be wrong, very wrong. Something like this always warrants a serious examination of intelligence failures. But intelligence failures, bad intelligence or failing to properly analyze the intelligence is a far cry from accusing a commander in chief of deliberately and intentionally misleading the American people. (like lies about sex.....what a worthless thing for an adult man lie about!)
Can we, perhaps, now drop the "Bush lied" nonsense, and pursue the business of winning the war against Islamo-fascism? Perhaps?

Answer 4

Obviously they are vastly different. One deals with use of public office, with tremendous impact on the public, both in terms of lives and livelihood, for decades to come.

The other dealt with a private, personal matter that had nothing to do with the powers of office, and the judge who found that he had committed perjury later ruled that it was improper to ever let the questions be asked.

This probably doesn't do much to answer your questions, but realize that Clinton dealt with a completely partisan, unprofessional Congress who kept trying to invent scandals just to gain political leverage.

Bush, up until two months ago, had a hypocritical, rubber-stamping, completely acquiescent Congress who not only wouldn't do their institutional duty of oversight, but essentially ran interference for him.

He may or may not ever get impeached. Clearly, the minimal, low-set standard of Clinton is not where we want the threshold to be for something as serious as impeachment.

For chrisser665: Clinton most certainly WAS impeached. Think of it this way: impeach = indicted. He was impeached by the House, and was found not guilty/was cleared by the Senate. Impeached, but not convicted is how it came out.

For stupid marxist: Your analogies are lame. He fought the Nazi's because they were formal allies of Japan, and THEY declared war on US after Pearl Harbor. With a grasp of facts like yours, your questions and answers and how they come about make more sense to me now.

Answer 5

Clinton was NOT impeached. I forget if any President's have been impeached, but I don't think one has yet. (Nixon RESIGNED, he was NOT impeached.) As far as the difference, the sexual life of our civilian president, while it may be distasteful, has no effect on anyone other than his immediate family.
The war in Iraq, however, has killed thousands of people, staged a civil war, shifted America's reputation in the world, and blown open the Big Business conspiracy involved in war, as well as repressed American Civil Rights (USA PATRIOT ACT) among other things. The two, while both under a president, are EXCEEDINGLY differrent.

Answer 6

#1 Clinton's lies were proven and he was impeached over it.

#2 You have yet to PROVE Bush lied bacause he didn't. You keep saying it but in all this time you haven't come up with a single congressional lie.

Back off Libby, you were beat before you started.

Answer 7

When Bush lies 655,000 Iraq citizens die and thousands upon thousands of troops die who have no business in a sovereign country in the first place.

When Clinton lies it is because someone is peeking into a bedroom window that is against the law in every state and country in the world.

james
.
.

Answer 8

Clinton lied under oath.
Bush was repeating the words of Bill, Germans , the Brits
and Saddam himself about wmds.
if the democrates want impeach Bush then why don't they.
NO PROOF OR NO GUTS

Answer 9

Bush aggressively pursues the interests of the wealthy elite making him untouchable. Clinton pursued the interests of the wealthy elite; but not aggressively enough, so they went after him.

The public didn't impeach Clinton. The wealthy elite did. That same wealthy elite has given Bush a free pass for his rather extraordinary crimes.

Answer 10

The difference is that Bush is lying about something that costs more lives everyday, whereas Clinton lied about something that didn't kill anyone. We were a lot better off with Clinton...in my opinion