Clinton: Lied about getting a BJ....under oath oooooohhhh (Like I care!!!!)
Bush: Lied about WWMDs. Lied about Al-Qaida's connection to Saddam. Lied about 9/11. Lied about the war being accomplished in 2003. Etc. etc.
The difference being (excuse my bumper sticker slogan): No one died when Clinton lied.
So, why is lying under oath about a BJ worse than causing thousands of deaths the world over??? Explain this to me please!!!
2007-04-26 08:20:54 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The tricky part is catching them do it under oath. Why do you think Bush is trying his best to keep his administration from testifying under oath??? Because he doesn't want the inner workings of this adminstration exposed, and because if they are put under oath, they either do just that, or they lie and get tried on perjury and obstruction of justice. Why do you think Bush wanted Gonzales to testify in a closed door hearing, with no transcript and not put under oath? Why do you think Condi Rice has dismissed the subpoena issued to her, stating that she will answer questions in a LETTER??? Bush and his administration will continue to lie to the american public through their teeth until they are forced to testify under oath.
2007-04-26 08:27:21 · answer #1 · answered by CelticPixie 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Hmmm... considering your list of Bush "lies" is itself nothing but fabrications, your question is without merit.
Bush did not "lie" about WMD. When all the intelligence agencies say WMD exists, when the intelligence agencies of other countries agree with that assessment, when the UN inspectors agree with that assessment, what else would Bush say? That the intelligence was found to be inaccurate AFTERWARDS doesn't mean he lied. Anybody who calls this "lying" is a moron.
Documents and debriefings of Iraqi officials have determined that the Iraqi intelligence services have had a relationship with Al Qaeda since 1992 or so. So, how is that a lie?
As for 9/11, what was the lie? Bush never said Iraq had anything to do with it, and it has long been determined that it was Al Qaeda. So, again, what lie?
As for the "mission accomplished", that was in reference to that particular carrier group, and was in reference to the end of major military action against organized military forces. The Iraqi army had been destroyed, Saddam's government had fallen. Baghdad was under US control. How is that not an accomplished mission? It's a stupid semantic point you people make, and is unworthy of any serious consideration.
May you find happiness in your bumper-sticker sound-byte world, which seem quite immune to facts or historical record.
2007-04-26 08:48:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
"I am beginning to wonder whether the White House has any interest in the American people learning the truth about these matters," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt.
Congress' effort isn't driven solely by Democrats. Republicans have barely restrained their disdain for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' accounting of the firings, including his claims of a faulty memory.
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, co-signed a letter with Leahy Wednesday urging Gonzales to freshen his memory and provide answers within a week.
He is not the only liar. This administration is a lie. I say impeach.
2007-04-26 08:37:05 · answer #3 · answered by The Eight Ball 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Excuse me for trying to bring a little COMMON SENSE into your argument. When Bill Clinton lied under oath, that is PERJURY, which is a FELONY. That is an imeachable offense. Your accusations that GW lied about WMDs are not true. He was WRONG about them as was most of the world, including such democrats as Kennedy, Albright, Dean, Gore, both Clintons, and Kerry to name a few. It has been proven that there was a connection between Al-Qaida and Saddam, although it was remote. What did he say about 9/11 that was a lie? Conspiracy? Totally ridiculous. The war was won militarily in 2003 but not the peace. No one is saying that lying under oath is worse than deaths in a war but they ARE saying that lying under oath is a felony and there is NO EVIDENCE to support any of your (assertions?) (lies?) about president Bush. Comprendo?
2007-04-26 08:51:13 · answer #4 · answered by just the facts 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Like a typical liberal you will always distort facts let me try and get it straight following what your intelligence dept and what your predecessor stated is not a LIE! it might be a mistake get your facts right. Nobody cared about Clinton BJ but he lied under oath which is a big no no and it wasn't about the BJ but it was about him obstructing justice so Paula Jones could not sue him for sexual harassment.
Stop pretending your are dumb I hope I was able to explain some of the facts to you.Somehow I don't believe you are really interested in the truth or facts.
2007-04-26 08:56:17 · answer #5 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
In addition to what has already been said about perjury, etc.
When you lie, you state something that you deliberately know is false.
We know for a fact that Clinton lied about Lewinsky affair. It is indisputable.
We do not know for a fact that Bush has lied. He may have had the intelligence to suggest WMD's, so he acted on that intelligence. Just because the intelligence was faulty does not mean he lied.
As far as the war being over in 2003, he did not lie. It took weeks to complete the actual war against Iraq. Furthermore, even if you don't accept that argument, not having the troops home by 2003 is not a lie. That would be a miscalculation that many Commanders in Chief had made (During WWII, they said the war would be over by Christmas, 1944).
If you want to criticize Bush for his handling of Iraq, go ahead. You have the ammo to do so. However, you do not have the ammo to prove he is a liar.
2007-04-26 08:35:52 · answer #6 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Because he swore on the bible to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, then proceeded to lie about everything. Also if he had not been distracted by his blowjobs maybe he would have took care of bin laden and 9/11 would not have happened and bush could have had a nice normal presidency. People did die under clinton too look at somalia where he took what was set up to be a regular peacekeeping mission and started attacking warlords then chickened out when the going got tough, also look at the waco and ruby ridge massacres where he let the fbi just kill the people off basically. Someone holding the office of president of the united states should have stepped down on their own for getting caught doing what clinton did, and if you think about it had clinton done the right thing and admitted to it and resigned then gore would have taken over right then as president and more than likely would have defeated bush in the 2000 election. If you or I get caught at work having sex with a co worker we would be fired on the spot but clinton did it for more than a decade because remember he did as gov of ark for all those years using the state patrol to pick up the lounge singer and bring her to him (ark tax payer dollars at work there lol). Hillary tries to act like she is such a strong, tough candidate but she was not even strong enough to deal with her cheating husband? She will be able to deal with bin laden when her husband allowed him 8 years to build up his organization and plan 9/11? Last but not least we would not be in iraq had the dems not voted to authorize the use of force even though no they are trying every way possible to weasel out of it and blame everything on the republicans.
2007-04-26 08:37:14 · answer #7 · answered by barrys 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes, Clinton lied under oath. But, why was he under oath? They were asking him about a freaking BJ!
And yes, Bush knew that Iraq was not a danger to us.
Google the "Downing Street Memo"
2007-04-26 08:30:15 · answer #8 · answered by Harry 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Clinton lied under oath to the senate judiciary commitee and was impeached. Bush acted on congressional approval to remove Saddam from power under the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But don't just take it from me.....
“I ended up voting for the resolution (to go to war with Iraq) after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, and trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part of this decision.” –Hillary Clinton, March 7, 2003
2007-04-26 08:26:08 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
where has bush lied?
1. NY Times reports in 2004 that over 500 tons of yellow cake uranium are moved to a more secure location. go to nytimes.com and search the archieves for "Tuwaitha"
2. Saddam Hussein was providing the equivilent of $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
3. Lied about 9/11??? Where, when, how?
4. The mission was accomplished. Saddam Hussein was not ruling Iraq anymore. The Iraqi people had a freely elected government.
5. Nobody died when clinton lied? Think Kosovo....
I don't know why Ken Star felt it necessary to ask Clinton about his relationship with Ms. Lewinski, but I do know that he was lying about his relationship with Linda Tripp
2007-04-26 08:27:25 · answer #10 · answered by Cato 4 · 4⤊ 5⤋