How can it be that Bill Clinton was essentially impeached for cheating on his wife....

[Cali_Democrat]

...but Bush doesn't get impeached when he starts a war that costs trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? And all of it was based on lies.

No impeachment....

Yet GOPers are now clamoring for Obama's impeachment because he's helping millions of Americans get health insurance coverage so that American lives can be SAVED.

There's something really fucked up about all of this.

[Scuba]

1. This is what happens when neocons are the powers behind both parties.

[Soylent Brice]

50. I love seeing the correct answer in the first reply.

[ReRe]

92. I agree. ;-l n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

116. No. You love seeing BULLSHIT in the first reply. Clinton being a neocon is irrelevant!

He was a successful, two-term Democrat who was popular and the Republicans wanted to destroy him.

That's the real answer. The correct answer.

[Soylent Brice]

153. ohai.

Soooo...

Um... I really do love seeing the correct answer in the first reply.

Your turn!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

156. "Correct answer" implies fact. It is not a fact. It is a fallacy. A fallacy is a statement that lack

logic or reason.

[Soylent Brice]

158. ...

[pampango]

53. Meaning republicans would not have impeached Clinton if he were a "true liberal"?

That gives a lot of credit to republicans which I don't think they deserve.

[Scuba]

59. That's certainly not my meaning. Since it's yours, how do you justify it?

[pampango]

62. If you did not mean that republican neocons were impeaching a Democratic neocon, I apologize. n/t

[Scuba]

64. That's exactly what I meant. The point was he was a Democrat; it didn't matter that he was a neocon.

[pampango]

67. If republicans would impeach a Democrat whether he were a neocon or not, then

"neocons are the powers behind both parties" is not relevant. The key fact is that neocons are the power behind the republican party. That by itself was enough to result in the impeachment of a Democratic president.

It does not matter (in terms of impeaching a Democratic president) whether liberals or neocons are the powers in the Democratic party. He or she could be very liberal (take Warren or Sanders, as examples) and a D president would be impeached.

[ieoeja]

134. Pretty certain means Democrats *would* have impeached Bush if the Party were not run by neo-cons.

Republicans would impeach Democrats regardless. Scuba is addressing the other half of the equation as to why Democrats did not impeach Bush.

[leftyladyfrommo]

66. I always thought it was because he lied about lying to his wife or

something like that. it got confusing.

I was surprised because I never realized it was "High Treason" to lie to your spouse. I kind of like that idea myself.

[Divernan]

85. No, he was charged with perjury, i.e., lying under oath in his grand jury testimony.

Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998.

[Niceguy1]

124. wasnt he disbarred, too?

People complain cause he lied sex, butbit was a sexual harassment case.

[ieoeja]

135. He was temporarily disbarred from the Supreme Court. He was never charged with perjury.

A lawyer is held to certain standards of ethics in a court room not applied to non-lawyers. He was ruled to have told the truth, but in a misleading manner that violated those ethics. So it was an ethical violation, not a legal violation.

Qualifier: the House *did* charge him with perjury. But he was never charged in an actual court of law.

[leftyladyfrommo]

131. But what was he lying about?

I don't think I have a very clear view of what "high treason" is. I always thought it was about important stuff.

And then the white rabbit goes running by yelling, "I'm late, I'm late".

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

115. That makes no sense. Look, I'm no fan of the Clintons, but if Bill Clinton is a neocon, and the

Republicans, too, are neocons, why would they want him impeached?

They impeached him because:

1. He's a Democrat; doesn't matter what kind of Democrat;
2. They hated him because he's a Democrat; and
3. He was a popular and successful Democrat.

That's all you and I need to know.

The rest is bullshit.

[Chasstev365]

122. Don't Blame the Republicans!

Blame Nancy Pelosi: "Impeachment is off the table". The worst political decision in US history! Really? What Bush/Cheney did weren't high crimes? Gerald Ford got it wrong: "the system doesn't work; we are a nation of men and not laws" and Thom Hartman is right: "The Republicans always play chess and the Democrats play checkers."

The Democrats should have relentlessly pursued the truth about the Iraq War and taken all the way to an impeachment trial (s), but they still think that American politics plays by a certain set of "rules. THERE ARE NO RULES ANYMORE! When will they EVER go on the offensive against the Republicans??????

[Nye Bevan]

2. Part of it is that a whole bunch of Dems such as Hillary and Kerry voted for the war (nt)

[NCTraveler]

5. This.

Bill Clinton stood alone. Bush had many accomplices.

[Louisiana1976]

38. Bush's accomplices could have been gone after too.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

117. Accept that Bill is best buddies with the Bushes and it seems good friends with John McCain.

That should rub all of us the wrong way regardless of how much we like the Clintons.

[NCTraveler]

126. Not sure what that has to do with my post in any way at all.

Clinton stood alone. Bush had many accomplices. Pretty simple and accurate concept.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

143. Sure it does. He was slow to condemn the illegal invasion of Iraq because his wife

supported it. Then, we find that they are neocons, and had associations with PNAC. It wasn't until this country turned against this sham of a war that the Clintons spoke out.

[Mr.Bill]

22. True, and

whenever a Republican tells me this I ask if there is anything else the Democrats voted for that they would support.

[George II]

23. Oh boy, here we go again!

[brett_jv]

54. I'm dumbfounded that people on 'our side' continue to perpetuate this falsehood ...

They did NOT 'vote for the war'.

They reluctantly (and with major caveats re: their support clearly expressed on the floor of the Senate) voted 'Yay' to ALLOW BUSH TO DECIDE whether or not HE took the Nation into war in Iraq.

There's a HUGE difference (imho) between that, and 'voting for the war' outright.

[bigwillq]

55. Did they really think Bush wasn't going to go to war????!!!!11111

If they didn't, then they are even bigger fools than I thought.

[laundry_queen]

57. Anyone who was conscious

and not a brainwashed bushbot or fucking stoooopid knew. *I* knew. I was a pregnant stay at home mom who occasionally read political stuff online and I knew. They knew too. They use the wording as plausible deniability, but anyone not stupid knew.

[brett_jv]

70. Regardless, why represent it that way when discussing the subject on a liberal board?

Why not be concise and say what actually happened? Why not say 'because they voted to allow Bush to make the decision about attacking Iraq'?

I mean, we have control here as posters what we say in our own posts, right? So why do WE bash on our OWN people by saying 'they voted for the war', when in fact, they did not? When in fact they BOTH intimated that they did NOT want the US to attack, said it was a conditional vote, contingent upon Bush exhausting ALL 'peaceable options' first?

[Nye Bevan]

72. Fair point.

I should have said "voted to allow Bush to go to war".

[laundry_queen]

74. Doesn't change the fact that

they had to know Bush would drag them into a war. They HAD to know. Which, even if they only gave him the power to make the decision on his own, still makes them culpable. They ENABLED the fucker. For example, when I see someone enable an addict, I'm perfectly capable of holding the addict accountable while STILL criticizing the enabler for making a boneheaded decision. I can walk AND chew gum. And I will criticize that enabler for being so stupid as to believe the addict when he says he will use the money for paying his car insurance or buying milk for his kids.

They may have said it was a conditional vote to justify their vote, but who seriously believed Bush would exhaust all peaceable options first? Either they were putting us all on, or they were punk'd. And for that they deserve the bashing.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

138. .

[awoke_in_2003]

96. I used to think I was a republican...

and the run up to the war in Iraq finally convinced me I didn't agree with the party on anything. I knew Bush was taking us to war, but these poor "un-informed" congress people didn't? Yeah.

[laundry_queen]

97. Ah.

Hence your username.

I once leaned conservative (here in Canada, that is, which is a gentler conservatism but still right wing nonsense nonetheless) because that's how I was raised but slowly started to drift leftward as I got older. In the run up to the war, I made a HARD leftward turn. There was no denying it then, was there?

[awoke_in_2003]

148. Yep, that is how I came up with the name...

looking back, I have no idea why I thought I was a republican, I don't agree with anything they do.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

118. BULLSHIT!!!!!! They voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq...something that Bush wanted and was

set to do! Just stop it. Please stop!

If you don't remember Robert Byrd, Bob Graham, and all of those who served on the Intelligence Committee begging the senators to read the National Intelligence Estimate--begging them not to do this, then you're full of it.

I'm done! How could you be so blind?

[blm]

3. Been asking that for a couple years now.

.

[billhicks76]

82. Not Me...It's Easy

Its because leadership Democrats are spineless, cowards who never play hardball with Republicans. The question should be why is that. It's difficult to answer but it has more to do with high level Democrats having sold out and that there is embarrassing dirt on them probably that keeps them in line and overcompromising more than it has to do with them being peacenicks by nature.

[Cosmocat]

103. To a certain extent

But, more than that it is simply the difference that you note - Democrats are spineless vs republicans who are amped up lunatics.

This is not to say there are not sell out democrats, but the two party system effectively weeds people out one way or another.

You just don't see too many democrats who are bloodthirsty, screaming lunatics like republicans while you don't see too many democrats who are willing to roll around in the political mud - a few Alan Graysons, and that is it.

And, the media plays to it with those dividing lines.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

119. I've always been able to answer this. The American people place double standards on the parties.

Explanation:

They expect Republicans to play politics.
They expect Democrats to govern.

They expect Republicans to be purely conservative.
They expect Democrats to be bipartisan.

The problem with the Democratic Party is that it is heterogeneous, allowing many points of views and people of all ideologies to join it. That is also the greatest strength. When you have to accommodate AND REPRESENT so many different types of people, it is difficult to be firm in one stance.

Someone will always be pissed off because their pet issue has not been addressed. Look around you here on DU. President Obama has angered everyone because each segment of the Democratic Party has some issue they want addressed---adequately addressed like they think it should be. When Obama cannot deliver because his tent is bigger and he has all these other issues to contend with, people get angry.

It's not like that for the Republican Party. They narrow their set of issues down to a small set that can easily be understood as part of a simple plan or agenda (e.g., remember Contract for America). "God, guns, gays" is easy. It's catchy. It's simple. And everyone on that side agrees that it is an agenda that can unite all party members.

That's why.

I also blame Americans in general who still claim that both parties are to blame for the problems we have. The Republicans have worked less than 100 days this calendar year. And yet, the American people will not hold them accountable for it. Why? Because the American people do not expect Republicans to govern.

When Democrats held Congress in 2006, 2008, those were the most productive years, and what was the response? Change didn't happen quickly enough; or, Democrats didn't work hard enough, so let's vote them out and put non-working, non-governing, idiot Republicans in.

There's one more explanation:

Understand that the media is now controlled by corporations, thanks in large part to Bill Clinton.

It has carried water for Republicans now for many years, marginalizing Democrats who DO fight back. When you watch these commentary shows and there are Democrats, what do you see? Kind, polite Democrats who are agreeable and cordial to the Republicans. They are typically DLC or conservative Democrat who are unlikely to challenge the moderator or the Republican(s) on the panel. You'll also see that the Democrat is outnumbered by a right-leaning commentator posing as a moderate (Cokie Roberts) and others.

The corporate media has been a major problem for many, many years now.

[blm]

144. LOL - I said that facetiously. Of COURSE I KNOW why and how. ; )

Been on that same page with you many times, old buddy.

[Boomerproud]

151. Brilliantly said.

Not a wasted word in your post.

[FreedRadical]

4. If I remember right, Bill was impeached for the lies he told to a grand jury.

Witch in no way diminishes your point about shrub. Just sayin.

[Pharaoh]

36. It depends

What your definition of is is......

Brilliant!

[oldhippie]

46. The words of the Articles of Impeachment ...

... mean nothing. It's really about how you feel.

[calimary]

49. Yes. Lies about SEX. He lied to a grand jury about SEX. CHEATING ON HIS WIFE.

Last edited Tue Jul 29, 2014, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Which is why it can be simplified down to being impeached for cheating on his wife. That's all they were able to get him for. And it wasn't for lack of trying. Yes. He lied to a grand jury. He lied to a grand jury ABOUT SEX. So I think it's fair. Saying Clinton was impeached for cheating on his wife, I think, is a fair statement to make - in order to convey the utter trivia of this particular chapter in their nonstop persecution of him. I use that phraseology all the time. Helps to minimize and trivialize the impact of "ooooooh, he was IMPEACHED!!!!!!" Yeah. For lying about SEX. He didn't steal. He didn't embezzle. He didn't cheat on his taxes. He didn't lie about why we had to go to war. He didn't tank the economy. He didn't shoot somebody in the face. He didn't torture anybody or order it or sanction it. He didn't loot the White House or try to pocket a bunch of trinkets which is apparently what the GOP does in Virginia on the way out of the governor's mansion (and the Clinton-haters lied about THIS, too - spreading lies about the outgoing Clinton crew trashing the offices and computers - which WAS. NOT. TRUE. AND. PROVEN. TO. BE. A. LIE.). He cheated on his wife. And the ken starr/republi-CON politically-motivated and richard mellon scaife-financed inquisition launched against him by a whole host of Sore Losermen from BEFORE he even got into the White House went through his frickin' underwear drawers and bellybutton lint, splitting hairs and manipulating and maneuvering phraseology and complicated grand jury questioning til they found something ridiculously puny and off-the-beaten-track that they could hang him with. So I think, as we fight back, it's a fair characterization to make. Hell, they didn't play fair all the way along, and were hell-bent on persecuting him and trying to remove him from office. So, frankly, I feel no such obligation to feed into or reinforce what they would argue on this point.

The more important message, I think, is to make sure that this ridiculously foolish persecution (and I DO call it a "persecution," as opposed to a "prosecution&quot is viewed for what it is. And that is: a ridiculously foolish, partisan, politically-motivated revenge jizz simply because Clinton had the nerve to shove their precious lord george hw bush out of his entitled "rulership" in the White House and deny him the second term which they assumed was his absolute unquestionable birthright. He was owed, after all. It was his turn.

Because, the bottom line here is what I call the "World's Biggest Entitlement Program." And it sure as hell isn't food stamps. It's not welfare. It's not unemployment insurance. It's not Social Security. It's not even the ACA. The "World's Biggest Entitlement Program" is the attitude of the GOP that IT ALONE is entitled to rule. The GOP is asserting a "divine right," if you will, and many of them DO insist that it's God's will, too. That IT ALONE should be ensconced in the White House. That IT ALONE should reign and set the agenda and tell everybody else how to live and what to think and how to feel. That IT ALONE should determine how we live, what we believe, who we pray to, who we should accept as "real" Americans, what we buy, what we pay for all those things we're supposed to buy, and how we vote (and who's even allowed to vote). The GOP is just simply supposed to govern, and to rule. Because. Because Benghazi or because impeachment or whatever the buzz word is this week.

Just saying'.

[davekriss]

60. Super great post!!

[FreedRadical]

123. Don't hold back. Tell me what you think.

Yeah, I remember those years. I remember how all that shit started with the White Water investigation and just never seemed to end until, as you say, until they found that one lie. Spent millions of dollars to conduct a witch hunt Salem would be in awe of. Yeah you're right. Impeached for cheating on his wife.

[Niceguy1]

125. except that he lied about sex

In a sexual harrasment case

[northoftheborder]

128. good post

[whatchamacallit]

6. Obama's Community Chest

[brooklynite]

7. Do you want an honest answer, or do you just want to vent?

First, there were never 67 votes to convict in the Senate, so in the mind of the average voter, he would have been "acquitted".

Second, being stupid isn't generally an impeachable offence, and neither is lying when not under oath. You would have to prove Bush knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway.

[world wide wally]

28. If I know he was lying...and you know he was lying...and he knows he was lying...

and about 90% of the rest of the world knows he was lying....it just might be provable.

[brooklynite]

29. I DON'T know he was lying (I don't over-estimate his intelligence)...

...and if he did it didn't happen under oath.

[world wide wally]

31. He took an oath to uphold the office and to defend the Constitution

That's a good starting point

[brooklynite]

34. ...and how did his actions in Iraq violate that pledge?

[world wide wally]

90. Do I really need to explain it to you?

[brooklynite]

102. Sorry, I don't subscribe to "we all know" as a legal doctrine...

You can hate Bush all you want, but when you bring the issue to the level of criminal or impeachable conduct, you need to think more clearly about what actions were taken. Being wrong and acting recklessly are not NECESSARILY legal violations, and the Constitution recognizes broad Presidential powers in the conduct of war.

While everyone lover to blame President Obama for failing to indict Bush and Cheney, I'll observe that no member of the House or Senate, however liberal, sought to do so either.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

157. You are absolutely right!! Had the majority of Dems in the House/Senate stood firm

and not went along with the Republicans and authorized Bush to go to war, they would have been able to issue Articles of Impeachment.

This is something that Pelosi never explains. She took impeachment off the table but never explained why. You broke it down beautifully, something that no one here on DU has ever done. So I'll echo your argument. Here's why Pelosi/Dems took impeachment off the table and why Obama should not be blamed for it:

The Democrats were pushed into a corner, going along with this fucking war. At the time, the majority of Americans were pissed off about what happened to us on 911; we all wanted revenge. Though many of us here on DU and in many liberal circles knew the truth--that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with the events that occurred on 911--the Bush administration, PNAC and the neocons had already established the meme, and with the aid of the Corporate Media, were going to push this story, punish and condemn anyone who got in their way.

Any liberal, any Democrat who questioned anything had their patriotism questioned, even by many Democrats themselves if they went against the established meme. Over 80% of this country supported George W. Bush and no one dared challenge his administration or this meme. Democrats were backed in a corner. Notice that the Democrats who challenge the establishment were from pretty safe districts or would have an easy time winning reelection. And I'm not making excuses for the Democrats who authorized Bush to attack an unarmed nation who had done nothing to us. A good number of Democrats in the House DID NOT give vote for the authorization. Still, a good number of Democrats DID. And those Democrats in both the House and Senate couldn't then turn around and bring forth Articles of Impeachment 5 years later. They essentially fucking approved war crimes!

A similar rationale applies to Wall Street. Those of us liberals who are angry at Obama for not adequately going after Wall Street need to understand why:

There were NO crimes committed. I repeat: THERE WERE NO REAL CRIMES COMMITTED. Why? Because Congress deliberately abdicated and weakened its oversight powers. Congress deregulated the entire banking and housing/mortgage industry. (I worked for Fannie Mae and now HUD, so I know what the fuck I'm taking about.) So what Wall Street did was essentially legal!! What crimes did they commit and how would we prove that what they did was illegal if the banking industry was deregulated and oversight function in Congress rendered useless? That's why when NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was appointed to look into the crimes committed by Wall Street and the banking industry, he came up essentially empty. What he did find were smaller, frivolous acts of little significance that amounted to fines that didn't even scratch the surface compared to what happened to the American people. He could find no evidence of REAL crimes committed because what Wall Street was doing was NOT illegal!!

These things are very difficult for us liberals to wrap our heads around because what these people did was morally wrong. I get it. What they did was wrong and they should be punished and under the jail. Yes, I agree. But those acts were conducted within the bounds of a system that they decriminalized. Congress makes the laws; those laws can be undone with the stroke of a pen or a vote. We liberals are going to have to start coming to grips with how government works. Our job should be to get people into office who can change the laws to what WE want them to be. Restore oversight. Restore reasonable economic regulations. But simply pointing fingers and blaming with no solutions gets us nowhere. And taking our balls home, threatening not to vote, and stomping our feet like children doesn't win elections. You never see the Teabaggers/Republicans act like this, even when they lose major fights. They're like a fucking fungus. They stick around; they just keep coming back and fighting harder no matter how many times they lose. We need to start acting like them.

-------

Your post is absolutely brilliant, and I've not seen anyone on this forum discuss this in 5 or 6 years. I wish there were more thoughtful, critical folks here on DU like you.

Bravo!! Well done! :

[Hippo_Tron]

105. The jury isn't selected from 90% of the rest of the world...

It's the United States Senate and 49 of its members were Republicans. Trying to convince Republicans to convict their own President would be comparable to trying to prove climate change to a jury of climate change deniers. You can show them all of the evidence in the world and they still would burry their heads in the sand.

[hedgehog]

8. The difference is that Democrats view impeachment as a serious process,

to be undertaken only in the most extreme circumstances. Republicans view it as a method to get a "do-over" should their candidate fail to be declared the winner of the election. The actual charge is "being sworn in as President while not a member of the Republican Party".

[savalez]

21. Bingo.

[AngryDem001]

24. You can also add:

"being sworn in as President while not white".

[SleeplessinSoCal]

37. Also, they never got over Nixon's impeachment based on journalists' uncovering a coverup.

Nixon was actually detested by Democrats as he ascended to the presidency after Kennedy defeated him and then was killed.

Nixon in hindsight did some very good things along with the bad - like his enemies list and not ending the war quickly enough. He wasn't "trickle down"/Ayn Rand crazy. He wouldn't survive either party's primary today. Heck! Reagan wouldn't survive his own primary today.

And then check this out for how long it took for LBJ's prediction to come true: The House was Blue for 40 years until the midterms of Clinton's first election. That turning led by Newt Gingrich made them rabid. And like the plague they keep turning for the worse.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Cosmocat]

106. excellent post

I was going to note that there absolutely was a bit of get back for Nixon in the Clinton thing.

But, overall there was a MASSIVE sea change in the 90s, where republicans willing jumped the shark and started playing the game in a much more rancorous manner - led by AM radio, that Nwet channeled.

The other thing is, they also started to get REAL serious about gaming redistricting around that time, too ...

They were angry and bitter over how they were unable to have full control of government during a run of republican presidencies and decided to both game elections AND also started to get dead serious about having the Supreme Court become a unchecked back end policy resetting point ...

[hedgehog]

142. Very good points - I think the key is that they really believed that the Democratic Party was

cheating, therefore the Republicans had to cheat to stay even. They are still absolutely convinced that Mayor Daley stole the election from Nixon, therefore whatever happened in Florida in 2000 was merely playing the game. Accordingly, they didn't see anything wrong with what Nixon did, therefore it was OK for them to impeach Clinton on anything they could scrape together.

For you young'ens:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Tuck

[HubertHeaver]

149. They can believe all they want that Daley stole the 1960 election.

The facts say otherwise. Official electoral totals for 1960 were: Kennedy, 303; Nixon, 219; Byrd, 15. Illinois had, in 1960, 27 electoral votes. Assign those 27 as well as Byrd's 15 to Nixon. Totals are now as follows: Kennedy, 276; Nixon, 261. Nixon was, and remains to this day, a loser.

Though Chicago's First Ward did not report after 6:00 am the following day, they did not affect the national election. For a good secondary source see Mike Royko's book Boss.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

150. Romney's "47%" leak is paramount to everything

They know they must cheat and misinform voters in order to have any power in politics. I suspect that's the real reason for their destroying the government. They must obstruct.

What they didn't do when Nixon was impeached was be crazy people. There were liberal Republicans. They've made themselves crazy in the way that royalty does. They're so busy "weeding" out the non-purists, that they're left with very unhealthy inbreeding. How else can we explain Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann? Or any Republican from Texas? They want the donors' money and don't care who it hurts or how they betray the country and dishonor the Constitution.

And that inbreeding will only allow for so many blacks, hispanics, Asians or Jews. Bigotry is huge. And Obama is just too big a target for them to pass up. Or miss.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

51. This^ ^ ^

[Cosmocat]

104. WINNER!

This is the simple truth ...

[tridim]

110. How dare you not use Clinton's impeachment to trash Democrats!!!1!

Truth is so rare on DU these days. Thank you hedgehog.

And to those of you on this thread trashing Democrats because the Republicans impeached a Democrat, bite me.

[JVS]

9. Ask the leadership of the democratic party.

They're the ones who decided not to impeach Bush and to look forward.

[Scuba]

61. Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

[jwirr]

10. I think that they investigated him for that but I think the impeachment was based on his lying about

it during the investigation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Too many Democratic Pols were collaborators in Bush's wars.

And, they're kinda reluctant to point guns at themselves.

[loyalsister]

56. Not only that, Dems remembered the backlash

Impeaching a "wartime" president when there is no chance of conviction would have guaranteed a president McCain and a republican congress in 2008.
Dems now snicker at the call for impeachment because they know it is very unpopular to drag the country through it.

[Baitball Blogger]

12. Lopsided power base.

If our country's leaders were more diverse, we wouldn't have fallen prey to the maniac assault from the Red Kool-Aid drinkers.

[postulater]

13. But our powder is still dry.

[KansDem]

14. "There's something really fucked up about all of this."

That statement best describes American Republicanism.

[Louisiana1976]

39. True.

[former9thward]

15. I have never read an elected Republican leader calling for impeachment.

Only read about impeachment on DU. No one is going to get impeached no matter what happens in November.

[Cosmocat]

107. Are you fricking kiddinng me?

http://www.bing.com/search?q=congressman+and+impeachment&form=IE9TR&src=IE9TR&pc=MDDRJS

Google congressman and impeachment.

There are less republican congressmen who have NOT breathlessly talked about impeaching this President than those who have ...

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Technically...

Clinton wasn't impeached for cheating on his wife, he was impeached for lying about it under oath. And Clinton was impeached because the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress at the time and thought they had the votes for a conviction; this is part of a broader Republican strategy of delegitimising the executive when they control Congress and a Democrat is in the White House. Bush, on the other hand, had a Republican majority until midway through his first term, and even after the 2006 midterms the votes were never there for a conviction in the Senate (it takes 67 to convict...two-thirds of Senators).

[Louisiana1976]

40. Why was Clinton asked under oath if he was cheating on his wife? I mean, that should be

nobody's business except his and his wife's.

[Spider Jerusalem]

43. Well...

actually, if he's engaging in sexual relations with White House staff members while president? It's gross misconduct in public office, at best, and therefore probably an appropriate area of investigation if potential misconduct in office is at issue.

[loyalsister]

63. It wasn't just Lewinsky

He was asked about it during the questioning regarding Paula Jones' sexual harassment accusation. He lied under oath. It may make us feel better to think it was just about cheating, but that's not the case.

Clinton arrogantly engaged in that relationship with full knowledge of how ruthlessly they were pursuing their goal to bring him down. His recklessness left the door open for them.

You are also correct in that there was a power differential that is far beyond that of a CEO\secretary affair that most of us acknowledge is serious enough to address via courts.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

17. I've been making the same point about Clinton and Bush for years.

Apparently, getting a blow job from a consenting adult and lying about it is an impeachable offense, but lying in order to start a war is OK.

Now, the Republicans say that Bush followed the intelligence he was given. That's not quite accurate: Bush read the intelligence that supported his desire for war in Iraq, and ignored that which did not. The term for this is "willful ignorance". Thomas Aquinas established the moral principle someone deliberately keeping him- or herself willfully ignorant is as morally culpable as if he or she was acting with full knowledge, and this is also well established in law. If you want the religious argument, see Aquinas' Summa Theologica I-II, Question 6, articles 3 and 8. If you want the legal arguments, Rebecca Roiphe's "The Ethics of Willful Ignorance" is good.

[hack89]

18. It was the lying under oath that got him in trouble

if he had simply come clean nothing would have happened.

[Nye Bevan]

20. Yep. He shouldn't have denied it. The story would have gone away after a couple of weeks.

Al Gore would not have puritanically distanced himself from Clinton on the campaign trail and would have been elected handily. Probably no 9/11 (hard to believe that the wonkish Gore would have ignored all the warnings). Definitely no Iraq war. The US still would probably never have had a black president, however. And DemocraticUnderground would almost certainly not exist.

It is not entirely facetious to compare Lewinsky flashing her thong strap with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.

[world wide wally]

30. We have a winner. ^

[BlueMTexpat]

112. LOL - if you really believe that ...

Rethugs, aided by their M$M buddies, were out to get him, no matter what. If not this, there would have been something else. Starr was originally brought in to "investigate" the Whitewater "scandal" but there was nothing to find. He basically then fished for anything else that he could find to allay his GOP controllers.

No, Clinton should simply have refused to answer the question or responded that the only person to whom he owed an answer to such a question would be his wife and then stood pat on that response.

Ms Lewinsky was not his accuser. Had she been, the situation would have been very different. She was literally forced to admit the affair to prosecutors after being subjected to some pretty heavy threats about being imprisoned herself after she had been betrayed by her confidante, Linda Tripp. If anyone used "power" to intimidate in this situation, it was those who were grilling her, who have - so far as I know - never been sanctioned for their overreaching conduct.

Even then, Ms Lewinsky was apparently no innocent, as seen by her actions prior to joining the WH staff and by her stated intentions.

No, Clinton should not have lied. Above all, he should not have engaged in such behavior

But neither should he have been impeached for it.

[hack89]

113. Not saying he should have been impeached

I agree with everything you said. I was just pointing out that it was more than cheating on his wife that got his ass in trouble.

[ieoeja]

136. One thing: he was never, ever accused of lying under oath by any court of law.

Otherwise, he would have gone on trial "in a court of law" for perjury. He hasn't because nobody outside the political arena has ever claimed that he lied under oath.

He was temporarily disbarred from the Supreme Court for providing "misleading" answers while under oath. If I did that they couldn't do shit to me. But as a lawyer he is held to a higher standard of ethics. So it was an ethical violation, not a legal one.

[Voice for Peace]

19. ya think?

There's something really fucked up about all of this.

[C Moon]

25. +1000

[bigwillq]

26. The DEMS did not want to hold Bush Co. accountable.

There's your answer, Cali_Democrat.

[polichick]

27. Yep. "Impeachment is off the table." We're "looking forward..."

Those were Dem leaders, so to speak.

[sabrina 1]

32. Because Democrats are afraid to impeach war criminals, they told us that it would 'look political'.

So we moved forward which they view as weak and then they made it all political anyhow.

When you are afraid to do what is right and allow criminals to walk free, you should expect them to continue to act like the bullies they are.

Some day if we get a Democrat backed up a real Democratic Congress, who has the courage to start cleaning up the mess we are living with, begin to enforce the law, it will be interesting to see how little time they will have to act like bullies, abuse the system as they do, because they will be busy to trying to defend themselves.

It's hard to understand why this president ever thought he could be nice to these morons and in doing so, he angered, and actually boasted about it, his own supporters, the ones who elected him.

Had he embraced the majority who elected him, he would have had a powerful behind him when he began the process of holding those who lied us into war and all those who supported the criminals, accountable. Instead he chose to try to appease the ones who did NOT vote for him, as if that was ever possible.

[raouldukelives]

88. + 1000 nt

[Shoonra]

33. Big reason Dubya wasn't impeached -- Dick Cheney

The real reason that Dubya wasn't impeached for lying us into a ruinous war, and about twenty other reasons for impeachment, can be summed up in one word - Cheney.

The president can be impeached and convicted but that only puts the next in line into the office. In the Andrew Johnson impeachment even the guy who would have moved up to the Presidency voted For impeachment. In Dubya's case, the vacancy would have been automatically filled by Dick the Prick Cheney.

Besides, the Democrats really didn't want to make impeachment a cliche for dealing with a President whose party is not the majority at the moment.

[GoCubsGo]

77. Wasn't he also the deciding vote in the Senate?

IIRC, in 2006, the Senate was 50/50, so the VP had a tie breaking vote. I'm not sure a Bush impeachment would have passed in the Senate.

[ColesCountyDem]

98. Conviction would have required 67 votes, not 51. n/t

[GoCubsGo]

132. So, in other words...

It would have been even more difficult to convict him.

[ColesCountyDem]

145. Precisely.

[JoeyT]

99. If Cheney saw a chance

to do whatever he wanted without having to run his schemes through his puppet, I think he might've cast that fucker into the pit à la Darth Vader.

That's one of the downsides to being allied with people that are awful on that level. They'll stab you in the back the second it benefits them.

[onecaliberal]

35. Republicans want to impeach

Every Dem in office for being a dem. Obama is not only a dem but he's also black. The biggots are coming unglued.

[RufusTFirefly]

41. Two reasons: 1) abstract vs. concrete and 2) the corporate media

1. Abstract vs. concrete

Today's short-attention-span member of the public has an easier time with concrete subjects than with abstract ones. Getting serviced by an intern is something everyone can understand, whereas making a mockery of the Constitution, although it's a far greater offense, is too abstract for many people to grasp. This also explains, in part, why when there are labor actions, members of the general public who should be siding with the workers, side with the owners instead. The inconvenience we experience from a transit strike, for example, is concrete, whereas the steady and deliberate erosion of workers rights is abstract.

2. The corporate media

Of course, another reason why people are more incensed by the concrete than the abstract is because that's what the corporate media pushes. It's easier for them to do stories about the concrete and more often than not serves the interests of the corporations who own the media companies.

[maddiemom]

121. Good analysis.

[Enthusiast]

42. What is really fucked up about all this is President Obama's failure to prosecute Bush

war crimes and treason. It was an open and shut case. But the President chose to look forward.

I think the best case to impeach President Obama is that he was derelict in his duty for looking forward in the face of the most blatant criminality by the executive branch in American history.

[polichick]

58. I agree. If the right wants to impeach Obama, it should be for that.

[Cosmocat]

108. Absolute bullshit

He would be a one term president and have had absolutely no policies implemented at all if he had pursued Bush in any way what so ever.

I hate what Bush and company did as much as anyone and would like to live in a world where that shit saw justice, but it is absolutely fantasy to think Barrack Obama was the person to do anything about it.

The moment he started anything directed at Bush, his Presidency would have ended. Christ, MINUS having done it he barely got ACA passed, by a lingering resolution vote to back door it, and has spent his entire presidency battling republican bullshit gleefully thrown at him by the corporate media.

There are 300 million other people more responsible than this president - the halfwitted nation who time after time after time merrily laps up whatever crap the republicans feed them.

HE isn't the problem here, it is us ...

[Enthusiast]

130. You are entitled to your opinion.

That is all.

[Fuddnik]

44. Ask Nancy Pelosi.

She's the one who said "Impeachment is off the table".

[valerief]

48. And the anthrax mail finally was, too. nt

[Aristus]

45. Bush (or Cheney and his cronies, really) managed to create a simulacrum of legality around

the invasion and occupation.

Colin Powell's baldfaced lies to a compliant Congress.

A UN Resolution.

Constant contextual references to 9/11, designed to shut down opposition in the name of "getting the folks that did this.'


Unfortunately, Bill Clinton only had his limping little justification: the definition of 'is'.

The Iraq War will be a blot on the honor of our country long after we have disintegrated into mutually hostile nation-states...

[valerief]

47. Clinton's cheating didn't make rich people richer. Bush's war did. nt

[randys1]

52. Your typical con is jealous that Clinton got so much you know what...

Bush Sr. was suppose to win reelection, there was a TON of damage they had yet to do to our middle class, they were furious they were not allowed to complete the 16 year plan of total destruction of the American middle class and near DEATH of the poor.


The impeachment of Clinton and dont forget the unprecedented action of SUBPOENA of a sitting president for the case with Paula Jones.

What they are about to do to Obama will also be unprecedented, you see the republican party are racists and criminals, all of them, or almost all of them, and when you interfere with their crimes, they take it very seriously.

[Progressive dog]

65. Clinton should not have been impeached,

but he was. Bush should not have been impeached and he wasn't. Impeachment of President Obama would be just another proof of how low the Republican party will go.
Impeachment was obviously not put in the Constitution to be used to remove people from office. There are supposed to be actual provable criminal acts.

[Initech]

68. The MIC makes more money when the republicans are in power.

[SoCalDem]

69. Clinton was impeached because of hubris

All he needed to do, was to admit that he cheated on his wife..in the beginning.. He thought he was clever and could manipulate language.. He underestimated the zeal of his enemies, and they caught him in a lie and ran with it.. We all knew he would not be tossed out, but the GOP was really just about publicly humiliating him and Hillary..and about adding that all-important impeachment detail in his record.

Democrats always punt on 2nd &3

We let Nixon quit
We let Reagan slide (Grenada & Iran Contra)
We let Bush 1 off the hook (Panama)
We let Bush Cheney (too numerous to list)

Dems gently clip loose threads...GOP yanks on them until the garment is totally destroyed.

[Mnpaul]

73. "We have to look forward"

This stupid policy allows the same criminals(Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld) to commit their crimes again and again.

[CTyankee]

71. I think we have to let go of this already. Let's move on. We"ve said our arguments

time after time. It's old.

I'm tired of going over this "if Clinton had done..." over and over again. It is what it is. He allowed the 'pubs to do their dirty work and we had the stupid impeachment.

It's an old grudge we have against the repubs but let's move on, OK? I hate it too, but at some point we have only so much energy and we don't need to waste any more time on this...

[jimlup]

75. I'm pretty sure a call to "impeach" Obama

Will backfire rather badly on the GOP.

[GoCubsGo]

76. I think the Dems were afraid a Bush impeachment would backfire on them, too.

They saw what happened to the republicans when they impeached Clinton. They probably figured the people were not up to another one so soon.

[jimlup]

78. Yeah and I also think that it would wake-up Obama's base /nt

...

[Doctor_J]

79. The dc dems are the "good cop" in the charade we pay to watch

[indepat]

80. What is really fucked up about all this is how the right-wing meme is thrust upon us incessantly by

MSM el al and eaten up by an incomprehensible number of Amurikans who vote un-American bastids into office.

[Kablooie]

81. Sex:bad - Saving lives:bad - War:good - Killing:good

[fadedrose]

83. They thought we wouldn' notice is all I could figure...nt

[Prophet 451]

84. Well, there's two parts to that

Part 1 is that Republicans view any Democratic president as being illegitimate by definition (David Brock explained the mindset in Blinded By The Right) and therefore, any way of removing them is justified.

Part 2 is that Democrats tend to be spineless.

[Rex]

86. Yeah that is how fucked up everything really is.

The GOP fucked over America and then fucked over the world. What amazes me is their paid for mouthpieces that pretend nothing really big happened criminally while the BFEE was in charge. Shows their total sellout to money over sanity.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

87. IOKIYAR

[blkmusclmachine]

89. Everything's OK ... if you're a Republican !!!

[MADem]

91. Of course there is something fucked up about all this.

The Republicans are soulless assholes. That's about as succinct as I can make it!

[greymattermom]

93. Are we sure he lied?

I remember that he asked specifically what was meant legally by "sexual relations", and the answer did not include oral sex. I thought he acted like a lawyer but didn't actually lie. Is this correct? What do you remember?

[jmowreader]

94. The only impeachable crime is being a Democrat

There have been exactly two presidential impeachment trials in American history. In both cases the presidents were Democrats and in both cases the charges were bullshit.

I think the Republicans will now impeach any Democratic president, just to make sure the president goes down in history as having been impeached. It doesn't matter if it fails.

[DeSwiss]

95. K&R

That last thing.......

[center]''There's something really fucked up about all of this.''[/center]


- Yeah, that's the one.

[Buddha2B]

100. I got told by right wingers at the time:

(Disclaimer: I'm Australian. I was chatting to right Wing Americans at the time).

I was told:

"You just don't understand, the president has his finger on the button. We can't have a president who lies because... (Now wait for it.. I swear this is 100% true)... we could go to War based on a lie!"

Ahh the 1990s....

[Cosmocat]

109. YEP

I remember that particular meme at the time, too ...

Same people who screamed for Clinton's impeachment like that and now President Obama, in between, were virulent in their opinion that "you can't impeach Bush because it would tear the country apart!"

As some have said, only crime is guilty of being a democrat and as others have said, Its OK was long as you are a Republican.

[customerserviceguy]

101. Bill Clinton got impeached

for lying about cheating on his wife, under oath, in the Paula Jones case. Of course, two-thirds of the Senate is needed to remove a President from office, and that's why only the far fringe of the reich wing is even uttering the word impeachment.

It's not going to happen, just a few talking heads on Faux Snooze trying to pump themselves up, Boehner is not taking any of them seriously.

And as far as Dubya goes, the Congress gave him cover on the Iraq invasion, they sure weren't going to impeach him over that.

[cantbeserious]

111. Duplicity Is An Ugly Trait Mastered By The Right

eom

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

114. AND...the American people will make sure it happens by handing the Senate over to Republicans.

And keeping the House firmly in GOP hands.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

[rurallib]

120. threat if impeachment is part of the right wing playbook now

since there are no specific guidelines ("high crimes and misdemeanors&quot anything can be an impeachable offense.
They care not that disruption and uncertainty in government can be really bad for the businesses they purport to favor.

[librechik]

127. because Dems aren't extremists and GOP is.

GOP instantly gang up and go for the throat without reason or compassion. That's why 6 years of filibuster & obstructions in Congress. DEms are actual human beings, not attack dogs. Sadly.

[CanonRay]

129. He was impeached for being a Democratic President

as Obama will be.

[hughee99]

133. The standard was set with Clinton, and impeachment is something one party will "clamor" for

in every Administration from now on. Obama's not going to get impeached any more than * was going to get impeached for starting a war that was wanted by the people who fund the people in congress.

[samsingh]

137. stupid treacherous repugs

[efhmc]

139. Which one makes rich white men richer?

There's your answer.

[DesertDiamond]

140. According to Buddhism, this is the predicted Age of Mappo, or Age of Confusion, when everything is

upside down and backwards. The good news is that it means we will soon have world peace, and common sense and compassion will prevail.

[radhika]

141. This is a great question for Nancy Pelosi...

A war based on false intelligence and gamed evidence, not worthy of impeachment? Not even worthy of Congressional hearings?

[AtheistCrusader]

146. Bush and Cheney were too smart to agree to deposition under oath.

For now-obvious reasons.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. He shouldn't have lied. He also shouldn't have been asked that question under oath. But he was, and he did, so he was convicted.

The GOP solution to that risk is to simply refuse to testify under oath. Which worked, and has so far insulated them from criminal prosecution in the United States on the lies that led to that war.

[WinkyDink]

155. No, they were simply more brazen.

[NM_Birder]

147. He was impeached for lying, not enjoying a WH hummer.

[merrily]

152. IIRC, Pelosi took impeachement off the table; and Obama said he was

going to look forward, not back. Plus, no one who relied on a legal opinion should get prosecuted (even if the legal opinions were sought after the fact, rather than before taking action and even if it seems that at least Bybee was bribed with the promise of a seat on the federal bench. Then the D of J said it found no evidence to support even a letter to relevant bar overseers, even though zero evidence is required for that purpose.

Unless we are playing dumb deliberately for some self-defeating reason, we don't expect Republicans to impeach Republican Presidents or Democrats to impeach Democratic Presidents. We expect the opposition party to act as prosecutor. Our party chose not to do that.

[WinkyDink]

154. Because Republicans like to put things on the table.