Why did republicans care about Bill Clinton's sex scandal more than they do George Bush's war scandal?

Question

Remember when people were crying about Bill Clinton and how he should have been removed from office because of his Monica Lewinsky scandal??? It was wrong and I can admit that. Bill Clinton's sex scandal and lies to the country were wrong.

But how can you not want to see Bush and Cheney facing some kind of hearings about their lies about the Iraq War??? It was wrong for them to purposely manipulate the congress and the american people in order to go to war. It might not be true, but they owe us all an explanation. They should at least be questioned about what they knew and when they knew it.

How could you possibly care about Monica Lewinsky's scandal more than the George Bush's war scandal???

Can republicans honestly tell me that think Bush did everything necessary to prevent war??? Are republicans not concerned that Bush might have set this country back and got soldiers killed based on a lie??

Where is the republican leadership on this one??? Even the democrats criticized Clinton at first until he told the truth.

Answer 1

Because they don't think that Bush did anything wrong even though 75% of the country know that he did



It's truly sad how some people continue being loyal to their side just so they don't lose face

Answer 2

Because the GOP is a treasonous party of corporate shills. They have to keep Democrats caged and unable to accomplish anything so they can gain more power. Bill Clinton was hounded by one investigation after another to impede the effectiveness of his presidency and to embarass the Democrats.



Bush got into the White House because enough people were sick of hearing about Clinton's affair and they stupidly thought that Bush was some family values type compassionate conservative. The media has ignored or treated very superficially every scandal from the Bush junta. If the criminality of the Bushistas was beat into the TV viewers heads the way the graphic minutiae of the Monica Lewinsky affair was, Bush would have been run out of town on a rail a long time ago.



The Downing Street memo, the warrantless wiretaps, the signing statements, the missing billions from the Pentagon and from Iraq, the torture, the rendition, the caging, and the shenanigans at the DOJ, the theft of national resources on national lands and parks, the interference of Bush in various lawsuits around the country to benefit his cronies, the no bid contracts, the gay male escort, Jeff Gannon and his +100 trips to the White House, etc. etc.

Answer 3

Saddam was a menace to the world security at large. Every leader in every other nation agreed this rogue dictator needed to be removed from power. Bill Clinton himself and all of the Democrats behind him agreed something needed to be done about Saddam. Bush got rid of him. He had in his possession WMD's, he once used them against his own people. The first time was in 1988 and over 5000 innocent men, women and children died because Saddam was a paranoid loon. The second time was right after the first Gulf War when he killed 3000 more innocent Kurds in Northern Iraq. Again, more innocent men, women and children were killed because they started an uprising against Saddam. The Iraqi people suffered for over 35 years under Saddams brutal regime. It was time for him to go and Bush got the job done. War is an ugly business and I don't give a rats *** if some innocent Iraqi people were also killed in the invasion of that country. This is a sad fact of war. Many good people die during wartime and nothing can be done about it.



Bill Clinton was a pathetic moron to allow himself to be in the position of having a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. The man is a disgusting liar who did absolutely NOTHING to protect us from Bin Laden while he was president. Why else did he play wag the dog by launching that cruise missle into the empty Afghan desert that accomplished nothing during the height of the Monica scandal.



WAKE UP and restudy your history.

Answer 4

Well, on the one hand you have Bill Clinton who got caught outright in his lies. On the other hand, you have Bush who is only called a liar by the same people that backed him and voted for the move to Iraq. This comparison is convoluted logic and meaningless.

Answer 5

Are people still talking about Clinton? Why?



I mean, I know most of the right wing of the Republican Party is gay. So? I guess they don't know about Warren G. Harding. But they sure know about a handful of Congressmen who've been censured for downright illegal behavior. They don't give a s**t because the dweebs in those cases are "good loyal Nazis!" Rape? Since when did a plump political groupie ever even mention that word? Funny how Sturmfuhrers of the RepubloNazi Party KNOW it was "rape" when no one else even claims that, and the scum weren't there and never even heard it from anyone sane. I guess they just have divine knowledge. Or maybe God talks to them...privately, of course.



War, to their way of thinking, is a high form, and even HIGHER when based on lies and stupidity. Don't ask me to explain that, I just recall the same ninnies and their daddums using any bogus hog wash they could to justify any amount of bloody murder in Viet Nam, and present whole lying theories to justify their insanity.



They're interested in making money or, better yet, stealing it.



Anything that distracts from that seems to upset them. Murder isn't even questionable in their world (unless it involves embryos!), whereas the odd oral indulgence is a special category of heinous sin...I guess especially so if with a female.



They're so depraved and disgusting, I don't see why it makes any difference.

Answer 6

Because Bill Clinton testified that he did not have sex with Lowinsky, so he lied while under oath. Kenneth Star and the republicans had been trying to take down Clinton for years, but until then ,they had never found anything that was actually a crime, and they could prove.

That was the B.J. that changed America.

If Clinton had been able to help Gore campaign, Al could have gotten the few extra Florida votes that would make him president.

Answer 7

I will never understand that. The Republican Party's hounding and impeachment of Clinton was dirty partisan politics and nothing else. Republicans are not to be trusted.

Answer 8

Way to go Neville Chamberlain! BTW Iraq had already broke the armistice by developing verified illegal missile systems. If you don't know the explanation then, you aren't paying attention. BTW a lot of Americans are alive because of Bush's policies. LOL.

Answer 9

I have to agree with Pilgrim, although Bill getting sexed by another woman in the oval office is a trivial pursuit(what married man wouldn't lie about that) Bill ain't no saint and a lot of shady things happened on his watch. By far I am most disappointed in Bill's inaction during the genocide in Rwanda.

Answer 10

Because Bill Clinton LIED!!!!! He lied to you, He lied to me, He lied to the WHOLE country on national tv. Clinton was on the bandwagon that took the morality straight out of America. From sports figures who abuse drugs and kill animals, To kids who wear their pants around there ankles to make them look like ex-cons. To the queers running wild in the media. Hollywood shoving it's filthy vile ideals down the throats of anyone willing to swallow. As far as Bush and the current war I only need say 9/11 we will not forget-better to take the war to these animals then to let it come back here.

Answer 11

Clinton lied under oath. He's a whore. Bush, along with MANY other countries' security thought that Iraq had WMDs. Republicans AND Democrats voted FOR the war. This fact does not make Bush a liar OR a whore.

Answer 12

Actually they care more about John Edward's haircut and sex scandal and Obama's birth certificate than they do about Bush's war scandal

Answer 13

Liberals always ask the wrong question . . .



Billy getting head in the oval office was the least of the offenses we were concerned about.



We REALLY cared about the corrupt whitewater dealings, the cover-up of the murder of Vince Foster, the Reno / FBI murder of a building full of people in Waco, the Reno / FBI murder of a woman with a baby in her arms at Ruby Ridge, the murder of a plane full of people to get Ron Brown, the commodity scam of Hiliary putting $1,000 in and getting $100,000 out and the list goes on.



But the only thing the government investigated was monica sucking his dick under the table.



I voted for Bush twice, but am disgusted at his performance, particularly with his out of control spending and a war that didn't need to be fought considering all we had to do was carpet bomb Mecca and the whole thing would have gone away for another 200 years.

Answer 14

Ironically the person who was going after him was having an affair at the time.



Bush should have been impeached and once he is out of office, he should be charged for war crimes, specifically torture and putting CIA run torture camps in places like Poland!



Bush is a criminal almost as bad as Saddam Hussein! Heck, he even used Saddam's old prisons to torture people!

Answer 15

The war in Iraq was perfectly legal.



I don't really think rape is.



http://www.shadowgov.com/Clinton/SGClintonRapeSummary.html



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33270



http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Feb1999/020399/clintonrape020399.htm





Clinton has a long history of rape.



If you think the entire case is a farce, why not answer this question for me?



Do you REALLY think an idealistic young person works hard to join the white house staff, just to suck ****?

Answer 16

Because W acted on CIA intel.



Bill acted on lust and unfaithfulness.

Answer 17

George Bush didn't lie under oath. Period.



Also, George Bush only invaded Iraq when Saddam Hussein openly refused to comply with the treaty from the first Gulf War that Bill Clinton failed to enforce for eight years.



Consider these statements made by DEMOCRATS: You can verify these quotes on snopes.com.



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.



"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.



"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.



"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is useing and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.



"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.



"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.



Now the Dems say Bush lied, that there were never any WMD'S and he took us to war for his oil buddies? Right!!! No, he just did what the Democrats had been asking for since the Clinton administration.

Answer 18

They don't take responsibility. They only criticize.

Answer 19

repubs also tend to be more upset about sex on tiv than violence on tv.