well, technically speaking, they are equal. Both lies. (kinda you either are or are not pregnant) BUT, i see your point. One lie caused the maiming of over 40,000 troops and the deaths of over 3,000 and the other covered up fellatio. I think I'd rather have the President that just wants to keep his privates, well... private.
The WMD's that Bush claimed Saddam had were Biological and Nuclear, we knew he had mustard gas and other nerve agents...we gave them to him!
2007-04-18 18:08:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by Katie 4
·
7⤊
7⤋
those Dems were obviously incorrect to boot. this isn't about political ideology, that's about the alternative made via a president of the U. S. to invade yet another united states for faulty causes. those who voted to provide him the authority to finish that were both in blunders--that's the substantial reason i'd not vote for Sen Clinton. The yellowcake that replaced into latest in Iraq replaced into undemanding to the IAEA, and is not any longer a WMD after all, except that's been both subtle into incredibly enriched uranium, or made right into a grimy bomb--neither is the case the following. The few mustard and sarin shells got here upon out contained in the wasteland were obviously buried for the period of Iraq's warfare with Iran, and the generals contained in the recognize are patently on the record putting forward that they don't seem what we went in to discover. in basic terms because such extremely some others were also incorrect would not recommend that Bush wasn't incorrect to boot. And he replaced into the in straightforward words one with the authority to launch the invasion, hence the duty is his.
2016-12-04 07:15:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by janta 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I honestly can't believe there are still people out there who are concerned about Clinto and Lewinsky and the damn "lie". Who wouldn't lie about something like that?? Newt?
I am amazed at the "loyalty" of the Republicans who actually think that Bush is a "good" man and that Clinton is not. Maybe we're too stupid to deserve freedom in this country.
2007-04-18 20:11:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Joey's Back 6
·
4⤊
2⤋
"I did not have sex with that women "was actually a lie proven in federal court.
"Iraq has obtained WMDs to be used against the US" was a concesus by the administration and congress who belived US and international intel and voted giving Bush the authority to invade. A link the to the law that was passed is below.
2007-04-18 18:19:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by Homeless in Phoenix 6
·
3⤊
4⤋
Both of those lies were based on faulty information.
William J: Oral "Sex" Is Sex.
George W: Bogus Intelligence Reports.
Both men justified their behavior and statements.
Both were issues pushed to the forefront of our Nations attention by the Republicans.
George should get the award as his was more expensive on so many different levels.
2007-04-18 18:21:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by ... 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Like stated by some already...a lie is a lie.
But perhaps its the question of which has done more damage. Therefore the second, if it was a lie, is found wanting heavily and the first... lightly.
2007-04-18 18:51:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rudi 1
·
3⤊
2⤋
Of course the second is the bigger lie. I have never understood how some people can honestly believe that a minor lie is worse because it was under oath, than a major lie, just because it was not told under oath. That is like saying that a jaywalker who lies about his crime under oath, is a worse criminal than a bank robber, who also lies about what he did, but not under oath, and somehow, they think that makes the bank robber okay or something. That is twisted logic if you ask me! Nobody died when Clinton lied, and no one had the right to ask him that question in the first place!
2007-04-18 18:22:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by LadyZania 7
·
5⤊
3⤋
The question is not who they were going to use the WMD's against. I have never heard anybody that knows anything say they were building them to use against the US. They did use them against the Iranians and the Kurds. They avoided using them against the US in the first war because they were told what the consequences would be. Who knows where they hid them or what happened to all of the WMD's by the time of this war.
2007-04-18 18:06:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by bravozulu 7
·
6⤊
5⤋
Bush isnt the only one that said Iraq had wmds Clinton said that one to. along with just about every other politician out there.
2007-04-18 18:13:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by epaq27 4
·
4⤊
4⤋
I cannot tell you which is the BIGGER lie, but I can certainly tell you which is the DEADLIER lie. That would be Saddam's imaginary weapons of mass destruction!
2007-04-18 19:32:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Clinton lied under oath. President Bush was not under oath further more even the democrats were pushing for the Iraq war even before President Bush took office because of WMD. So in that stand Clinton was in the wrong.
Now ask the question why is one President force to go under oath and asked question about his sex life that he had to answer. While another president can refuse to go under oath to be question behind closed door about 9/11.
2007-04-18 18:06:50
·
answer #11
·
answered by wondermom 6
·
7⤊
7⤋