...a president that IS impeached (on issues invoving lies told regarding his PERSONAL life)...
OR
...a persident that is NOT impeached (yet has lied and distorted facts regarding issues that affect the PUBLIC)?
2007-12-26 06:49:53 · 10 answers · asked by Free Radical 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
By far, the second case is the worser of the two.
A personal indiscretion that, at most, affected only those directly involved in the situation is nothing compared to an intentional distortion of facts and faulty intelligence that has led to the hundreds of thousands of lives needlessly lost, not to mention billions of dollars wasted for failing venture at "nation building."
"...You left out the part where Clinton failed to kill bin laden when he had a chance..."
Seeing as some want to take a trip down memory lane, we could place blame on Reagan as well for aiding and training bin Laden and his "freedom fighters" in the first place. Perhaps if it weren't for these policies, then terrorist groups would not have the capabilities to carry out their acts.
2007-12-26 07:16:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
a president that is NOT impeached (yet has lied and distorted facts regarding issues that affect the PUBLIC)?
By a country mile.
Cheney has walked away from shooting a man in the face while under the influence, and exposing a CIA agent out of spite. We won't get into his dealings with Haliburton nor his lies to invade Iraq.
Bush's list of lies and crimes are too numerous for me to type.
2007-12-26 14:53:25 · answer #2 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 6⤊ 5⤋
I think both are used as distractions. Notice that there are always a number distractions out there? The real issues get pushed off the plate for the sensational. Its disgraceful that we are so unfocused as a nation. Every candidate wants to talk about their business experience but i can tell you a business run like the US is right now is bound to fall apart.
2007-12-26 14:55:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
You left out the part where Clinton failed to kill bin laden when he had a chance. Perhaps 9/11 could have been averted.
You left out the part where 250 thousand Yugoslavians died and a million Rwandans died because the Clinton administration did NOTHING.
Worst scenario? Clinton without a doubt.
2007-12-26 14:55:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Come on, dig deep now...you know the difference between lying under oath and not. Have we had enough hair-splitting yet?
2007-12-26 14:55:38 · answer #5 · answered by Maudie 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Bush and Cheney need to pay for what they have done, if Justice means anything.
2007-12-26 14:57:07 · answer #6 · answered by RELAX 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
A president who is impeached because it is PROVEN and SUBSTANTIATED.
Like clinton who:
-sold pardons
-was the first president accused of rape
-had to have friends bail him out with his "defense fund"
-lied to a federal grand jury
2007-12-26 14:54:42 · answer #7 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 3⤊ 6⤋
Guess I would have to go with the one that actually commited crimes.
2007-12-26 14:54:59 · answer #8 · answered by booman17 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
The latter.
2007-12-26 14:54:50 · answer #9 · answered by Vengeful_Hippie (AM) 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
i'll go with number 2
uhuhuhuh
2007-12-26 15:26:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋