Browse By

Challenge to Clinton Impeachers: Explain Why Bush Can Break The Law

I’m issuing a challenge to people who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton for supposedly lying under oath (although the statement “there is no sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky” was narrowly true, in the present tense):

Explain to me why impeaching a president for a blow job is a acceptable, but holding George W. Bush accountable under law for conspiracy to commit torture (U.S. Code 18 Section 2340) is unacceptable.

I’m looking forward to the pirhouettes and the leaping jumps.

3 thoughts on “Challenge to Clinton Impeachers: Explain Why Bush Can Break The Law”

  1. Jim says:

    Nearly six months, and nothing. Yeah, that’s what I thought.

  2. Kevin says:

    Your question is based on a faulty premise. Bill Clinton lied, and that is a proven fact. The idea that George W. Bush broke the law has not been conclusively determined.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      No, it’s not. He wordsmithed cleverly, depending on the present-tense meaning of the word “is” in the phrase “there is no sexual relationship” in his testimony.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!