If Bill Clinton was impeached for the Lewinsky affair, and Richard Nixon because of the Watergate problem, then why was George W. Bush not impeached, since his lie about the existence of WMD caused the loss of thousands of lifes and billions of dollars?
Well under your hypothetical scenario where President's - unlike every other US citizen - are held to a different standard of justice then sure - Bush should have been impeached.But since what you stated didn't actually happen there was no reason for him to be impeached.Let me clarify. President Clinton was impeached for lying under oath during his deposition as part of the Paula Jones investigation. He was NOT impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for LYING under oath while sworn in as a witness.See the difference?Richard Nixon wasn't facing impeachment due to the "watergate problem." He was facing impeachment because evidence surfaced that he had directed the FBI to obstruct an active criminal investigation because of connections to the White House. He conspired to obstruct justice in a criminal matter. That's what he was facing. So let's make the obvious comparison.Did George Bush knowingly LIE under oath in the lead up to the Iraq War? No he didn't.Did he obstruct or in any way prevent a criminal investigation from being undertaken?Again - no he didn't. If you can offer any proof that George W Bush KNEW there were no weapons of mass destruction and KNEW that Iraq posed no danger to the US or her allies either in 2003 or in the near future then by all means - publish this evidence so we can all see it.But since there isn't any. Since the issue is that the President was just as caught up in the lie as everyone else - there is no case to answer.Should a President be impeached every time he/she gets a major foreign policy decision wrong? Can you imagine this kind of scenario - where President's are paralysed and reluctant to make any decisions because they fear impeachment?It's a scary world.By the way if you want to look at a US President who lied to the American people in order to get them into a war they didn't want to be part of then you are looking at the wrong President. Back in 1940 Franklin Roosevelt ran for re-election with "keeping America out of European Wars" as one of his campaign pledges when he knew full well America would have to enter the war and he intended to lead her into it.
Did Hillary Clinton agree with Bush that there were WMDs in Iraq?
Did Hillary Clinton agree with Bush that there were WMDs in Iraq?Hillary's quote is about halfway down.I haven’t followed the link because this is one of those topics that confuses many people because it is presented as a GOTCHA by conservatives.Yes, Iraq had WMDs at one time and, yes they used them against their own population. Hillary Clinton, being a former Secretary of State, would be fully aware of this and being - despite conservative reports to the contrary - both competent and basically honest probably made any number of references acknowledging this.But this dodge is the same basic lie that the Bush Administration told, a lie told through equivocation.Saddam Hussein's WMDs were chemical gas weapons. These weapons were proven to exist. They could have been in existence at the start of the invasion of Iraq, but were not the WMDs that the Bush Administration sold to Congress and the American people in the run up to the invasion. Everyone from Bush down kept referring to "mushroom clouds" and started the yellow cake hare, none of which had any basis in reality.Today we are playing a major support role in a fight against a regime that is currently using WMDs: Syria. Syria has used chlorine gas - a chemical agent that qualifies as a Weapon of Mass Destruction - against its own people yet no reference to this is used to fan the flames to send troops to Syria, nor should it.Bush lied. There was never any threat of "mushroom clouds" and the yellow cake uranium scare was just another take on the "mushroom cloud."
I saw a bumper sticker that said "No one died when Clinton lied" -- what does this mean to you?
It means Bush lied us into a war, and loads of servicemen died. Clinton lied about having an affair, and other than offending some peoples' delicate sensibilities, it didn't really hurt anyone.
Why did Clinton and the democrates lie to President Bush?
Are you serious when you ask about Clinton lying? Isn't this the same Clinton who said."I never had sex with that woman?" Is this the same Clinton who had information on Moussauri, one of the suspected hijackers on 9/11, but advised that the FBI hold off on examining his laptop? (Reported on Time Magazines website) The same Clinton who had Osama Bin Laden in his sights but told intelligence not to go through with the plan on capturing him? Didn't the Democrats sanction the war in Iraq and now lie about that too? Clinton's own intelligence told him about a possibility of attack on our soil utilizing our own airliners, but he continued to undermine the intelligence agencies and emasculate the military. And you wonder if he, and the Dems would lie about anything else?
94 Nations believed Iraq had WMD & 84 Iraqi scientist...were they all wrong?
Nations that said Iraq had WMD's Israel, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Spain, Canada, U.S.A. France, England, Russia, Iran, Ireland, Kuwait and on and on went on record and said Iraq had WMD. In the U.S. House of Rep: 178 Democratic members said they believed that Iraq had WMD In the U.S. Senate 31 Democratic members including Clinton-D N.Y. believed Iraq had WMD Also, 84 separate Iraqi scientist said they worked on WMD, touched them, saw them. Are all of these examples of Nations & People ALL liars?
Did Bush lie about Iraq have WMDs or was he misinformed?
Bush LIED about the IMMEDIACY of an attack on this nation by a country that might have had WMD. He was misinformed about the WMD. The Bush Administrations' mouthpieces claimed to have known where they were located yet we found none. However, ignorance is NOT bliss in this case. When opposing views were being proffered he did not bother to listen to the dissent. He MADE the choice to enter into a pre-emptive war against a country that did not attack us or have the capability to attack us. To the idiot said they moved the weapons to Syria. Get Real. These were the same weapons that Rummy claimed they knew the locations, "Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview March 30, 2003 We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." the same ones that they presented diagrams and a slide show with circles surrounding the "weapons sites" to the UN in the speech Powell delivered stating where they were located. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/... IF they knew where they were located, how the hell can it be believed that the satellites that we have that can see a gnat on a donkey's a*s could not pick up movement of all these HUNDREDS OF TONS of weapons they supposedly moved. Puhleeze, Google Earth would have been able to see them moving