what is the difference?

Question

why hasn't anyone tried to impeach bush didn't he lie about the first reason we went to war? If he didn't why does the reason keep changing. I mean they tried to impeach clinton because he lied about getting a bl*w j*b isn't a lie no matter the size a lie?

Answer 1

Here are some impeachable offenses in case anyone hasn't been paying attention:

Illegal wiretapping of American citizens in violation of the 4th amendment of the united states and the FISA statutes:

Illegal wiretapping of American citizens in violation of the 4th amendment of the united states and the FISA statutes:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/

Detaining American citizens without due process, thereby violating the 5th amendment of the constitution of the united states:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html

Kidnapping foreign nationals from other countries and having them totured:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

Violating International Law as recognized by the UN and Nuremburg Chaters by invading a sovereign nation who posed no threat to us:

Chapter 1, Article 2 of the UN Charter states:
3.All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Principle Vl of the Nuremberg Charter states:
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii .Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Bush Declaring himself a defacto monarch by issuing hundreds of constitutional signing statments in which he dictates which laws he will and will not follow:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/


For someone who thought Clinton sould have been impeached for lying under oath (even about a trivial topic), it should come as no surprise that I think Bush should be impeached/imprisioned for this criminal conduct.

Answer 2

Even though he has obviously lied, cheated, scammed, cherry picked intelligence, spied on civilians and illegally attacked Iraq etc, the Dems are smarter than the Cons. The Cons would waste countless money and time to smear and impeach Clinton. Most Dems won't waste taxpayer money and time like that. Bush is definitely impeachable but the cost far outweighs the gain.
Time will deal with Bush when he is a sad, lonely, unloved, forgotten mistake. Bush doesn't deserve to be impeached because Bush doesn't even deserved to be recognized as a president. Bush is a sad mistake made by the American people and the world is paying the price.

Answer 3

The Republicans controlled Congress until quite recently. It takes time to build an impeachment case.

Clinton was not impeached for lying. He was impeached because the Republicans decided to throw their weight around. As a result, the nation was fixated on the blue dress instead of paying attention to al Qaeda. We know the result, and in the end, it is the Republicans in general and Ken Starr in particular who made 9-11 possible.

Answer 4

personaly,

I didnt really care as the spoo on monicas dress didint get us into a war where 3000+ toops died, no number of civilian deaths accured due to using a cigar as a sex toy, and the words"I did not have sex with that woman" affected the price of gas about as much as the wind changing direction did

However, Mr. Clinton tried to shield his indiscretions from public view, They were purposely exposed by the right and pressed by a mostly red congrestional body

Mr. Bush(yes I said Mr.) on the other hand has made no such effort to shield his indiscretions, His efforts to recant his poor judgement are the basic equivalent to "oops, my bad" and strangley, the left has failed miserably at exploiting the given situation as was done with the lewinski incident,

it would seem to me that the mostly blue congrestional body that we now have lacks the media connections needed to take advantage of a proverbial gift horse and do the much needed damage that should equal the last nail in the coffin so to speak, or maybe they just refuse to do business that way(which by the way is how it should be but, it seems that the public responds better to mudslinging than anything else)

Answer 5

Lets just say that Bush DID lie. You should have proof before making an allegation.

Lets just say that Bush DIDN'T lie. You should question where he was provided information from subordinates that MAY have had "best information" at the time the information was provided.

If memory serves me correctly, there was evidence of WMD's of which it took FOREVER to get our congressional leaders to agree upon a course of action! Heck, my pet snail could have crawled across country in the time it takes our congress to act.

There was certainly sufficent time for our opponents to make arrangements to have the WMD's moved.

Now....where's the lie?

Clinton was specifically asked during the congressional inquiry if he had sexual relationships in office....the Clinton response was a premeditated deception. Nixon was a premeditated deception. Carter...well Carter is just a nutcase who NO concept of foreign policy...his record shows that!

There are a myriad of issues one could blame on every President from this country's conception.

The problem today is the media stretches the story to make money and sways public awareness in a biased manner!

When we start ignoring facts and instead listen to eggheads like those who say 9/11 was a US initiated conspiracy...we've lost all control of reality and intelligence!

Answer 6

First, your question uses objectionable language and if it isn't deleted its a travesty.
Bush went to war based on intelligence that the Congress reviewed and voted FOR, he may be guilty of not having complete and correct evidence, but not of lying. If he's impeachable for this, we might as well clean house and just start over with a new congress at the same time.

Answer 7

OK yes, the yellowcake thing was wrong and should be investigated.

But it's revisionism, and wrong, to argue years after the fact that, but for that one item in a laundry list of items, most of the legislators who voted to go to war would not have. It's a silly argument - oh, out of everything, THAT ONE was the real reason I voted for the war. If I'd known there wasn't really any yellowcake..... Which isn't 100% certain anyway - - all we know is that there probably wasn't a meeting on that particular day.

Answer 8

No he did not lie. The world community believed that Saddam had WMDs. Bush operated off of the same intelligence as the rest of the world at the time. How can you impeach him for that.

Answer 9

You mentioned size after the BJ thing.. that is pretty funny.

Well as to really answer the question, no one will provide proof that he lied. The reports are all over the place, one says there were WMD'S one says there wasn't. It won't work. Bad part is he is innocent until PROVEN guilty. We all know he is guilty along with his butt buddy Cheney, but as the govt cover ups go on, we will never be able to PROVE it. I wish it were simple but it isnt. He does need to go, I fear what harm he can continue to bring to this once great country.

Answer 10

The difference between the reasons for staying in Iraq changing and perjury? Fact is, the reasons for staying in Iraq have changed, and some of that is outside the control of the US at this point. You might look to the enemy for a place to lay some of that blame.

Perjury is a crime.