Why did Ron Paul support Clinton's impeachment but wouldn't do so for Bush?

Question

This seems to go against the libertarian doctrine. Clinton's affair was a private matter that he lied about. Bush's taking us into an unjust war was a public matter that he lied about.

I like Paul's views on foreign relations and a smaller government. The impeachment question really bothers me.

Serious question that I hope some Ron Paul supporters will answer. This isn't a debate on Iraq.

In a debate Paul proudly announced that he was the only candidate on stage who voted to impeach Bill Clinton.

Answer 1

Ron Paul had to vote whether Clinton committed perjury regarding a BJ, his integrity forced him to acknowledge that. It doesn't mean he supported the wasteful witchhunt.

Answer 2

Why did Ron Paul Vote for Tabling Cheney Impeachment?
[I took this from a Reddit blog]

Okay it's rather simple, there was no house investigation. If there had been a House of Representatives investigation of Cheney's crimes, then the vote would have merit. Without any investigation, but just straight to impeachment sets a very bad precedent. Remember, they can hold trials in the House, they have done it before, but long long ago.

Without a proper investigation with Cheney's crime in the record, a precedent is set that anytime an executive branch official does anything that a congress member takes exception too, they can vote to impeach without a trial by the House, or even an investigation.

The reason he tabled it is because it would go to the Judicial Committee, where compelling evidence and records of the investigation can become record. Then with the articles of impeachment shown to have merit, the bill can be sent back to the House for a full vote where I am sure Ron Paul would vote for it. The House needs to do this in an airtight Constitutional way or not at all, because we all know who sits on the Supreme Court.

So to simplify: The articles of impeachment need merit of an House investigation so the crimes are congressional record before a prudent man would vote for it otherwise there will be a precedent that Congress can impeach an executive branch strickly based on policy.

And who wants that? I know the public passion wants Cheney frogmarched, as do I, but we don't need to rush in, that's for fools.

permalink


http://politics.reddit.com/info/601pp/comments

Answer 3

Let's go over it again. . .

1. Clinton not only lied, but he lied in a civil case. That would be known as perjury, and perjury is a crime. Now whether it meets the standard of "high crimes and misdomeanors" as called for by the Constitution is debatable, which is what Congress did. Ultimately, the Senate decided it was not enough of a reason to remove him from power.

2. You do not know that Bush "lied' about taking us into an unjust war. It is perfectly plausible that he acted on the best intelligence he had available, but his conclusion of WMD's was incorrect. You can be incorrect without lying.

3. Even if Bush lied about WMD's, this is not necessarily a crime. Granted, it is not a smart thing to do and one would hope for more from a public official, particularly the President. But lying in and of itself is not a "high crime or misdomeanor.". Face it, if lying was a crime, there wouldn't be a whole lot of politicians left in Washington.

Answer 4

while I dont have a problem with Bill getting a BJ, everyone knows the case was about more than that but dems break it down to that. Having said that, Clinton did lie under oath and that is grounds for impeachment whether he should have been under oath in the first place doesnt matter at that point- think Libby who "lied" under oath even though it had already been shown that Clinton holdover Armitage "leaked" the non covert agents name to the press- He still LIED regardless.
Bush has not lied, let alone under oath. Everyone in Washington knows the case would fall apart rapidly if brought to a trial so they are trying the case in public where they dont have to prove a thing to make it stick. Going to trial would actually undermine their efforts to smear the president.

Answer 5

You don't understand the Constitution. President Clinton was impeached for committing a crime. He lied under oath in a trial. He got caught.

Mr. Bush did not lead the US into an unjust war. You are incorrect on that issue. It is the responsibility of the President to wage war when it becomes necessary. About 60 leaders of 60 other countries agreed with Mr. Bush and joined the coalition. What proof do you have that 61 heads of states committed criminal acts? Answer: none. It did not happen.

There are no grounds to impeach Mr. Bush. Representative Conyers has been salivating at the idea of starting impeachment proceedings. He cannot do it because his own leadership knows there are no grounds.

Answer 6

If there any actual evidence that the president misled us about the war, he would be impeached. Unfortunately, everyone had the same info prior to the Iraq invasion. So, Bush lied to us about as much as oh....say, Hillary did.

The impeachment proceeding against Clinton wasn't that he engaged in oral sex with an underling, it was that he lied under oath (which is a crime whether the question was about a "private matter" or a "public" one)

Answer 7

bush did not take us into an unjust war-congress did. bush has lied about nothing. You have to know one thing, and say another, to lie. Lying is not what you call it when several large intelligence organizations, a publicly elected body of congress, and various foreign governments make a decision that turns out to be wrong. Do you want them to consult psychics and a magic 8-ball? Clinton knowingly lied to the senate, and committed sexual harassment (what you call it when you give your boss a sexual favor in exchange for other favors) in the oval office.

Answer 8

Another uninformed parrot spouting off the easily debunked "Bush lied and led us into an illegal war" crap.
Do you ever research or do you figure that the Liberals did that for you?
Who did Bush lie to? Hillary? So she'd vote for the war?
I hate to break this to you, well, actually, no, I love to break this to you because it's your Liberal lies that are so much fun to expose to the light of truth.
Hillary consulted with HER HUSBAND'S intel people,NOT with Bush or his people.
She SAID so.
Want MORE information?
There WERE WMDs in Iraq...and had we not sat around on our backsides waiting for the impotent UN to do something, we'd have gotten them.
Instead, they were moved to Syria. Several of those SCUDs were later sold or given to Hezbollah for use on Israel.
Or don't you remember those attacks?

When one looks at the FACTS and not your rhetoric or libel then one can easily see why Bush has not been impeached...
because he has not committed a crime.

Pathetic how this can be beaten into the heads of liberals ad nauseum and they just don't get it.

Answer 9

1. Clinton lied under oath in a court deposition and was convicted. During the impeachment hearings, he was not convicted.

2. No proceedings have been brought against Bush, only Cheney.

Answer 10

You have to have a case for impeachment. Do you know what that means? Proof. If you can show proof, then yes, impeach. Where is it?