Why do neocons think it was OK to impeach someone for lying about a bj but not for lying to get us into a war?

Answer 1

I completely agree with free thinker! To the person who said that your question was incomplete, because Clinton lied before the grand jury...I will only say that no one had the right to ask him that question in the first place, and it was not him that made this country a laughing stock to the rest of the world, it was Kenneth Starr, and all those other idiots who made such a big deal about such a private matter, just because they were trying to bring him down, and nothing else they tried to use against him worked. Have you ever read a book called Glass Houses? Well, if you haven't, you should. It is all about the horrible offenses that those who were trying to bring Clinton down, were themselves guilty of. All of these offenses were light years worse. So, stick that in your pipe and smoke it! *sm*

Answer 2

Because whoever is in power will find whatever way they can to defend the people on their side. Likewise with belittling the people on the other side.
When Clinton got a bj, the Republicans ignored their usual stance on not mixing private matters with govenrment business.
ANd they believe this war will help further the neocon goals. So naturally they don't want to get rid of the guy helping this happen.

Answer 3

First of all, I don't think you posed this question right.

As most liberals posting half-stated questions, you left out a significant detail to your question.

Such as:

Why would neocons think it's OK to impeach a President lying to the Grand Jury about getting a bj from an intern less than half his age while sitting in the Oval Office?

Secondly, I personally don't think it's any of your business why people disagree with you while you attempt to shove a bj question down our throats when people of your similar orientation and viewpoints, continually defend a President who lied to the Grand Jury about receiving a bj - when in fact most of you are merely jealous it wasn't you easing him back into his seat and you kneeling in the Oval Office.

Thirdly, one would think bringing this issue up time and time again only refuels people's staggered attempts at asking the same question for the 100,000th time - simply because you can't lose the grip you have on it.

Answer 4

The sad fact of the matter is the Right Wing spent time investigating a b j because that was all they could come up with after the White water investigation came up a$z out of gas. The right wing nuts spent more tax dollars investigating a b j than we did investigating 9-11. The Bush Administration took 411 days to even start the 9-11 investigation after all the while resisting efforts by US citizens to get an investigation under way. What we ended up with was a watered down 9-11 report that barely addressed most of the hard hitting questions (like why protocol wasn't followed, why it took so long to dispatch fighter jets etc.) and pretty much said there was a failure in the system but no one in the system failed.

Answer 5

Bush did not lie under oath--like Bildo. Bush relied on exactly the same intelligence that Clinton relied on--read the transcripts of Clinton's speeches. I heard a Bill Clinton speech today on the radio. Clinton said that Saddam Hussein was a menace, that he would menace other nations again, and that Iraq needed a new government. The transcripts are there. Read them.

Answer 6

This question is rediculous. Libs constantly try to bring up impeachment or censure of Bush over this "lying" issue about the Iraq war to try and get even for the Clinton impeachment. First of all, Clinton lied to a grand jury that was investigating sexual harrassment by him and libs say this is normal behavior. You wouldn't think this if they were investigating your mom's boss or co worker after she was sexually harrased and that person lied about it. But, because you're not involved in the case, you think its no big deal. How horrible!

And second of all, everyone knows (yes even libs) that Bush didn't LIE about anything. You can say he used bad judgement if you want because thats at least debatable, but lying? No, he didn't lie. He used Inteligence that he recieved from our CIA as well as other inteligent agencies around the globe to make the case for invading Iraq. I still believe it was the right thing to do, however I think it was mismanaged by Rumsfield and Bush should take blame for that. But to call him a Liar is rediculous and only derails the debate of what we're doing there and how to finish it.

I have to say again, that I love how you dismiss the perjury charge as "lying about a bj" as if it is nothing. Sorry, guy, but what he did was deplorable. He harrassed a woman sexually by exposing himself and then when she reported it and they investigated it, Clinton lied like the snake he is to derail this poor woman's legal right to have him held accountable. Again, this is horrible behavour, especially by the President of the United States of America.

Answer 7

First of all, Bush did NOT lie about Iraq. If you recall, even most of your beloved Liberals like the Clinton's agreed there were WMD's in Iraq as did just about every other country who had intelligence on Iraq. As it was very little has turned up...so far. Being wrong is NOT the same as lying. And about your icon, slick-Willie? Had he been doing the job he was elected to instead of using his dip-stick on interns, Osama Bin-laden would be dead and the World Trade Center's would still be standing!!

Answer 8

If Bill Clinton had been a republican they would have slapped him on the back and asked for Paula and Monica's number. They're hypocrits.

I can't believe they think its o.k. that the president commuted Libby's sentence. The whole Whitehouse is obstructing justice and our Congress is sitting around with their thumb up their butts.

Answer 9

Because 'neocons' are "holier-than-thou" and couldn't come up with any other reasonable distraction to keep American voters from revolting against the total incompetency and arrogance of a do-nothing U.S. Congress.
Now, for those of you that think I'm biased, let me add: the 'new' Democrat-led U.S. Congress is just as repugnant, having done absolutely nothing to try to end this immoral 'war' in Iraq, as they promised to do when naive American voters swept them into office. -RKO- 08/09/07

Answer 10

Because of the stained dress. You want to impeach Bush? Get irrefutable evidence to support your allegation. Otherwise, you haven't a case.