if clinton can get impeached.............?

Question

if you can impeach bill clinton for lying about something that has nothing whatsover to do with politics or the well being of our country, then why dont we impeach bush for lying several times about several different things???

hey peter N, CALIFORNIA is responsilbe for 13% of americas economy, u better hope we dont just decide to break off, or else the country would be HURTIN

Answer 1

Because President Bush didn't lie. No one has yet listed any factual lies and what the violations were. Clinton committed perjury by lying to a Grand Jury while under oath, not for his Monica fling. Besides, all of a Presidents actions while in office have to do with the well being of our country. If one is willing to lie and cheat on his own wife, what's to stop him from doing it to millions of people he doesn't even know.

Answer 2

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, subjourning perjury, and obstruction of justice. Are you sure you want to say that had nothing to do whatsoever with the powers entrusted to the Executive Branch (who is supposed to be enforcing the laws)? If you do, you're wrong, and an idiot. . . In that order...

For Adam. Uhh, the linkage between Iraq and Al Queda (saddam and osama) isn't as far fetched as you would like us to believe. Both are/were Sunni muslims. Both have a rabid dislike for America, and both have been reported to have significant contact between government and terrorist organization. For what purpose???

Answer 3

Clinton didn't get impeached for lying about sex. He got impeached for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Both felonies. All presidents should be [equally] held to a higher standard because the importance of their position has an enormous impact on the safety and well being of our country and everything they do or say has the potential for causing a great deal of harm to our country. Anyone who runs for President should know that and accept that before hand and that responsibility should govern their behavior at least while they are in office. Bush "may" have lied. He may have selectively chosen which intelligence reports to make decisions on. He may have also just made bad decisions based on the best evidence possible at the time. But what he did and what Clinton did wasn't the same. When you stand up in court and swear under oath that you will tell the truth - you tell the truth. Our justice system only works because (when) we follow rules and expect that those rules apply equally to everyone regardless of who they are and what they are in court for. Personally I don't think that Clinton should have been in court for a non criminal matter while he was serving as President because even though everyone has the right to seek justice for wrongs committed against them (as several of his past "victims" have done), and also have the right to see that justice served swiftly, there are greater issues at stake that the President needs to attend to and EVERYONE suffers when he doesn't. With that said though, he did have to go to court, and as embarrassed as he might have been to have to talk about his sex life, he did swear an oath to uphold the constitution, and then another to tell the truth, and he didn't do either.

And what if all the women (and there have been several) who accused him of either sexual harassment, or in some cases worse, were telling the truth. Some of the complaints against him were worse than perjury, but may have been either overlooked, or swept under the rug. If he was accused of all those things for no other reason than some vast right wing conspiracy than certainly the conservatives involved have no integrity, and he should seek slander charges (and where appropriate filing false police reports) against them. However, IF he did those things and got away with it, and then the left chooses to ignore that and still try to say he’s a great man, well, then they not only have no integrity, but they also condone violence against women.

I personally don’t believe anyone who is actually good enough to deserve to be president would actually run because of all the terrible things people try to say about them and do to them as soon as they do. We are left then with the best we can get to run and so our choices of late have been in a lot of ways what we as a society deserves.

Answer 4

1) Clinton lied under oath at a civil deposition while he was a defendant in a sexual harassment lawsuit
2) Lied under oath to a grand jury.
3) Attemtped to influence the testimony of a potential witness who had direct knowledge of facts that would revel the falsity of his deposition testimony.
4) Attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness's plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena.
5) Attemped to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false, and then by making use of that affidavit at his own deposition.
6) Lied to potential grand jury witnesses, knowing that they would repeat those lies before the grand jury
7) engaged in a pattern of conduct that was inconsistant with his constitutional duties to faithfully execute the laws.

Not to mention several sexual harassment lawsuits (Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones), and Lying to the American public on live TV.

These do rise to the level of high crimes, Yet when impeached, the Democrats rallied around this guy to save him. No one from the left denounced his actions, only claimed its about sex and its his private business.

24 people that year were sentenced to the federal correctional institution an average of 5 yrs for perjury, Clinton did no jail time. Hell, even Scooter Libby got jail time and he didn't do 1/5 what Clinton did.

And about California breaking off, we'll take the hit! Its worth it.

Answer 5

It should give you a clue about the difference between the rep and democrats that they were willing to drag the country down for a private thing (not that I'm condoning what the idiot did) that most people would/nave done the same thing.

Bush would never be convicted in the senate if impeached by the house so there's no point in going through all that crap.

Answer 6

1) Clinton was impeached for perjury & obstruction of justice. Both felonies.
2) Bush did not lie.

Answer 7

The Republican government pressured the intelligence agencies of the country to come up with proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction because he was threatening the oil pump of the West.... and the Republicans also wanted revenge for the destruction of the Twin Towers and the investment opportunities that would be created in a war ravaged Iraq. So...what's new in the ongoing wars of the world, either in business or bullets buzzing over your head? And what was a Polish woman doing in the private closet of a President? Come on....could he call the police? Who would believe him? Hillary's loyal....so am I.

Answer 8

California is right...

Bush packaged the whole Iraq scheme as "They (Iraq) are a threat to us right now, this instant, immediately. They're with Al Qaeda, who has already admitted to the 9/11 attacks, they have the ability to produce, or already have WMD's, which can harm us, and we need to defend ourselves against this threat."

He used the nations fear to get approval to invade Iraq.

Fact of the mater is...there was no threat from Iraq. They were not supporting Al Qaeda. No WMD's were ever found on Iraqi soil. Bin Laden was, and may still be, hiding in Pakistan, or Afghanistan, and that's where we needed to be focusing our efforts.

Had Bush been honest and told the nation "Look, Iraq is being ruled by a terrorist dictator who is killing his own people, and I want to use military force to go in and take him out," the American public would have told him "let them take care of their own problem".

So...9/11 happened and that was the catalyst to the whole "WMD" lie, and that on top of the already growing fear by the American people, of another terrorist attack, basically gave Dubya what he needed to go in and invade Iraq.

It might not have been a lie...but it was definitely a misconception.

What Clinton got busted for was nowhere near as bad as what Bush is getting away with.

Answer 9

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the president didn't lie about anything. If you are talking about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, all those in Congress who voted for the war saw the same intelligence and were convinced Saddam had them.

Answer 10

Clinton LIED UNDER OATH!!!!!!!!!!! do you understand that concept and the effect that it had on this country? What has Bush lied about?!? Honestly, can you tell me?!?!