And since Bush lies were not under oath yet it is OK? Nobody is defending Clinton, why are you all so obsessed with it. He was impeached. What does that have to do with Bush and his lies and his war?Originally posted by OBNOXUS21
CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH
And he did nothing wrong? Who cares if he "fooled" around, that's his own business BUT HE LIED UNDER OATH
It is the same set of laws that keep us free, and it is the same set of laws that say this calls for impeachment when a president lies under oath!!!
Which leaves the UN, who unanimously agreed to Resolution 1441, to live up to their word.
Where in Resolution 1441 does it say we will attack even if we find no proof that he did not disarm? Where is the proof? If it is so clear why is Bush down to Tony Blair and Spain, both of which have lost all the support of their people? Why do the inspectors say Bush and company are lying and there is no evidence that Iraq has any weapons? Why does Bush and company keep changing their story and reason for attacking? Why have none of you read the manifesto they wrote?
I guess it is just easier to name call and try to distract the whole thing by constantly bringing up Clinton since the fundamentalists seem to get so excited about the Clintons for some reason. It really has no meaning at all for those of us opposed to the Bush plan for taking over the world and really has very little to do with the debate.