During the clinton scandal (for which bill clinton was ultimately disbarred and impeached), the liberals called for "respecting the president." Now that bush is having "scandals" shouldn't we still respect the presidency?
Isn't this the same point?
2007-06-19 09:06:06 · 23 answers · asked by infobrokernate 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No disrespect, but "Well duh." If you're looking for consistancy from democrats, you've got a long wait ahead of you.
While republicans are political animals, no species on earth is more political than a democrat. The ends justify the means to these folks and what they said yesterday? Well, that was yesterday.
2007-06-19 09:10:15 · answer #1 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 2⤊ 5⤋
I'm not sure how you equate lying to start a war, running the justice department as an arm of the GOP, and exposing the identity of an undercover agent during time of war for political gain with chasing the president around with a special prosecuter who was supposedly investigating a land deal and, finding absolutely nothing, tried to embarass the president by asking about his sex life under oath.
How did that impeachment go, by the way? Found guilty and resigned? Or the entire thing was dismissed and shown to be a waste of the country's time and money?
Funny how getting behind the president in time of war is suddenly so noble. . . I remember a different story in Kosovo.
2007-06-19 09:16:19 · answer #2 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There is a double standard when it comes to liberal politics vs. conservative politics. Liberals tend to think that Clinton just had a sexual moment with a woman intern. They don't seem to realize he used abused his position in having a relationship with a subordinate. In most companies that is not allowed. Plus he broke the law by lying. He committed purgery in front of a grand jury. But we are supposed to respect his presidency. Not to excuse Bush's scandal's but if you are going to do one than allow for the other.
2007-06-19 09:28:45 · answer #3 · answered by igdadriver 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Clinton should have been impeached. But the president has violated the constitution which he swore to up hold. He has infringed upon the rights of America. Sacred rights for which I and millions have fought for. I can't believe we have taken it up till now.
2007-06-19 09:17:11 · answer #4 · answered by Dani 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's not about treating two presidents from opposing parties differently, it's about the liberals who have long had the minority of support for their agenda trying to now convince moderates that they have the superior plan for America's future. It is a weak attempt to sway the balance of power.
They took the majority of congress and look, congress' approval rating hovers right in the gutter with the President's.
Bottom line, they are not trying to do what is right for us but what is right for their party to gain power, it's quite sad...
BTW, Clinton's inaction as President DID cost thousands of American lives on 9/11 and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in Iraq. We want strong leaders and then complain when they follow through with what they say...hmmm.
If you want to be hand-raised by a huge intrusive government that Will stifle any chance of individual success with bureaucracy and ultra high taxes, then vote Dem. Ask anyone who is old enough to remember the Carter regime what it was like. Nice guy, terrible president...
2007-06-19 09:15:08 · answer #5 · answered by ©2009 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Clinton's scandal didn't cost the thousands of Americans lives.
2007-06-19 09:18:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is the same thing alright. The primary difference is that Bush has not committed any crimes to get impeached. Being in a war that liberals don't agree with is not a crime. Liberals only worry about respecting a position such as the President's only when a liberal is in that position.
2007-06-19 09:15:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
President Bush is not involved in any scandals. Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury, and to you the American people. Big differance in the two.
Why do liberals still defend him and say it's about sex. He lied under oath. When Martha Stewart lied she went to jail and she ONLY lied to the FBI.
2007-06-19 09:10:40 · answer #8 · answered by grinslinger 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Of course you should still respect the presidency. It is the man who has lost the respect of the world (and much of his own country).
2007-06-19 09:14:24 · answer #9 · answered by Webber 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, when did we call for respecting the president?
I didn't.
I bet you didn't respect Clinton when he was in power, now you shouldn't demand that we respect Bush just because some phantom 'liberals' said we should respect Clinton.
2007-06-19 09:10:12 · answer #10 · answered by ck4829 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yes.
In the Clinton era, the Republicans attacked the presidency and the Democrats criticized them for it; now, the roles are reversed.
2007-06-19 09:09:03 · answer #11 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋