SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (49567)12/19/2005 5:18:28 PM
From: American Spirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Bush disobeyed the law and lied about it. I don't care what CLinton did or Ulysees S. Grant did. Bush has been president for five years. Actually the correct comparison would be Richard Nixon. And he was impeached/forced to resign as a result of his illegal spying on opponents activities, then lying about it.

And no, I'm sure CLinton never did any of this sort of thing, spying on Americans illegally and overstepping his Constitutional powers. Clinton played by the rules. In fact, CLinton was so cooperative with the law he even volunteered to be under oath to talk about his personal private sex life. He also did not attack or smear his opponents, he faced the fire and blamed no one but himself.

Let's see Bush answer questions under oath, because his crimes and misdemeanors are far more serious, numerous and far-reaching, and Bush cannot hide behind the so-called "war on terror" this time. He is busted.



To: longnshort who wrote (49567)12/19/2005 6:51:59 PM
From: sea_biscuit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
In that case, why didn't the Regressives impeach Clinton for that instead of going after some meaningless sexual dalliances? That allegation if true is so explosive that Clinton would have been in the same situation as Nixon.

The only explanation why the Regressives chose to attack Clinton on his sex life is that NONE of the other allegations is true.