Nixon. Reagan. Clinton. What about Bush? What happened?

[Q]

Many of us who lived through the Nixon years were impressed by the process of checks and balances used to remove a criminal from our White House. Democrats, Republicans and the American media worked in concert to prove that no President was above the law. Nixon resigned when he realized that even members of his own party wouldn't help him to coverup his crimes against the people.

In the 90s we were astounded that impeachment had been turned into a partisan process to remove a hated adversary from high office. We were told that simply lying about sex was a 'high crime' and that no president was 'above the law'.

In 2005 we're mystified by the fact that George Walker Bush can seemingly get away with anything and both sides sit like stunned sheep and simply accept or actively help to cover it up. What happened to the political landscape between Nixon and Bush? And why is impeachment out of the question even though Republicans hold the majority?

How could it be that Republicans and Democrats were able to work together to remove Nixon, investigate Reagan and impeach Clinton but Bush is above reproach and beyond the rule of law?

What happened? Anyone care to speculate?

[Aviation Pro]

1. Money happened....

...and trumped principle. Also the whiny, selfish baby-boomer generation happened.

[murielm99]

3. Not the baby boomers.

The yuppies who followed them were the selfish ones.

I have never compromised my principles. Neither have most of my contemporaries and friends. We raised our children that way, too.

And this is more about corporate power than the ethos of any generation.

[Skittles]

6. please don't paint entire generations

greed and selfishness span generations and have been with us since time began - although I have to say Reagan made both greed and idiocy fashionable. You are correct that it is more about corporate power.

[murielm99]

13. I agree with you.

I was quick to answer the poster because I have seen that meme about boomers here quite a bit lately. It is often presented by people with low post counts and disabled profiles.

I mentioned the yuppies because they were predominant in the eighties. I remember the Newsweek cover by Trudeau, and the jokes about yuppie scum. Greed was fashionable then. But I know there are many people who grew up in the eighties who never fit the stereotype.

[Skittles]

20. yeah, I know what you mean about the boomer stereotyping

good lord, we span EIGHTEEN YEARS - we really cannot be TYPED! :o

[SharonAnn]

101. Unfortunately, lots of Yuppies are the younger Boomers

Loving * has become a cult. Rove has accomplishing total brainwashing of those who listen to the R-W media. They are completely mindless.

[Skittles]

2. in the seventies there was true investigative journalism

that has gone with the wind; it has been replaced by "infotainment" - much of the networks were too titillated by Monica to actually inform the people it wasn't a high crime, much the same way they cannot be bothered to inform the people that outing a CIA agent is TREASON.

[madrchsod]

4. independent media

and republican senators who believed in the democracy of the united states and it was their duty to protect it. we have neither now.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. They control all three branches.

That makes them all above the law. Nothing will happen in this current context.

As for Clinton (I'm sure this will get me flamed), They guy was a premeditated 2 time felon. He committed perjury and obstruction of justice while serving as the chief law enforcement officer in the country. If you can't trust the president not to commit perjury and obstruction you can't have ANY faith in the legal system. If that doesn't rise to the level of a "high crime" it is certainly a "misdemeanor" in my book.

His actions also set the precedent that a president can commit perjury and obstruction without being punished. What will we do when Bush is forced to perjur himself over something of more consequence? From here on out he can do what he wants on those two crimes.

Too bad it was pushed by the repugs because, I thought they were right. I had nothing at all in my mind with what questions were asked. When you go under oath, you are REQUIRED BY LAW to answer those questions. With his law degree in hand he decided to roll the dice and see if he could get away with it.

Don't even get me started on the poll he asked Scumbag Dick Morris to take asking whether it would be more damaging to his reputation to commit the two felonies or just admit getting his gun cleaned by Monica. (came back in favor of the felonies, in case you are unfamiliar. The guy took a poll on whether to commit two felonies?!?!?!?

If he had stood up and said "Yeah, I got a BJ from my intern. It is none of your business" and walked out I would have been his biggest supporter. Once I saw what a lying weasel he was I started turning out Gore '98 bumper stickers.

By the way, many fail to remember that we also lost two Republican Speakers of the House over the Bru-ha-ha. Newt went down, Clinton didn't. On balance I think the Dems came out on top of this one.

That all being said, there are countless reasons to impeach this asswipe. Not the least of which are war crimes. No wonder they won't sign on to the world court (Clinton didn't either by the way).

[Q]

7. Strange that you never mentioned anything about Bush...

...or that he has lied and obstructed justice on numerous occasions. Compared to Clinton's lies about blow jobs...Bush makes him look like a boy scout. Isn't the current 'president' more relevant to discussions about impeachment?

And the two speakers of the house 'went down' by their own doing. Their downfall had nothing to do with Clinton.

[DistressedAmerican]

8. BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED!

Never meant to imply that he shouldn't. Take a look at the last lines. The asswipe in question is our current "beloved" president.

As to the relevancy, take a look at the original post.

The current president is at issue but, so are past actions. Especially when they created a legal precedent with the Clinton case that Bush can use to cover his own ass. Bush's lies and obstruction are just fine under the Clinton precedent. Thanks for helping me make my point more clearly.

[DistressedAmerican]

9. Newt maybe?

Livingston was outed by porn king Larry Flint on his illicit affair and resigned the position because of it.

[Q]

11. Newts downfall was about his own affairs and unethical practices...

...in fundraising. Notice that nearly all of the house managers went on advance their careers and received rewards from the Bush White House?

[DistressedAmerican]

12. And Livingston?

busted by the porn industry. Frankly it was one of the funniest things I have ever seen take place in the realm of politics. OK, we lost one Speaker. Ane Newt went down. I can deal with that. I'd still call it a victory for the Dems.

[Q]

14. It was your tirade against Clinton...

...that was objectionable. We should keep it in perspective by realizing that everything that was used against him for impeachment was related to his 'affair' with Monica. Although the Republicans investigated every aspect of his and Hillary's life going back decades...all they could hang on him was his lies about sex.

The Clinton impeachment was not justifiable in any sense of the word. They found much more incriminating evidence against Reagan and Poppy Bush and both of them escaped justice without a scratch.

[DistressedAmerican]

16. I don't care WHY he committed the crimes

I care that he DID commit them.

The sex thing never addressed the real issue of whether he took the oath and lied or received subpoenas then sent Betty Curry over to get them and hide them under her bed. If you do not think people should be forced to testify about sex acts, we need to amend the law. The oath is not "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, unless it is about sex, So help me God." The chief Law Enforcement Officer should follow the laws, especially those that go to the heart of the integrity of the legal system. Sorry, if it is embarrassing or politically inconvenient. Again, his actions make it MORE DIFFICULT to get to Bush. That is my point.

Just for the record. I hate Bush. He is the worst President I have lived through. He is a war criminal and he should go to jail. Personally I'd like to see him bunk in with Clinton.

[Cheswick2.0]

22. There was no Clinton precedent

he was not guilty of those things you accuse him of. Sorry, but nookyfibs are not perjury when they are not pertaining to or instrumental in an ongoing case. In case you have forgotten the law, Ms. Nosejob's case was thrown out of court.

[DistressedAmerican]

29. Several judges ruled that it was pertinent

That's why he was forced to testify. You may not agree with their conclusions but then again you are not hearing the case.

[Cheswick2.0]

36. nope...didn't happen that way

sorry, but he was never guilty of either perjury or obstruction and you can't provide one piece of evidence saying he was EVER found guilty of either. Sorry

[DistressedAmerican]

47. They were proven to my satisfaction.

[Cheswick2.0]

55. yes I can see that

the law and the truth are less important to you than your hatred of Bill Clinton. That is very obvious. You have called him a fellon on this thread and I think you need to take it back. No matter how much you wish it were so, that you think he should have been found guilty according to your shakey understanding of the law, still does not make him a fellon.

[DistressedAmerican]

60. I do not hate Clinton

I hate presidents that get away with premeditated crimes. I do not care who it is. I would pound them either way. Found guilty and Is guilty are two very different things. There are a lot of guilty people that have never been convicted.

You can not use the failed impeachment process to argue whether he did or did not commit the crimes. As explored elsewhere, bipartisanship prevents a full and open hearing on the issues. that does not mean that the crimes did not occur.

As to my legal opinions, they are shared by those Bar associations we discussed earlier. While they do not have the power to convict him, their removal certainly implies that many legal experts agree with me. The fact tat it was after the whole deal and therefore less influenced by bipartisan politics makes their opinion less biased that any findings from the congress.

Where's you law degree?

[Cheswick2.0]

19. I guess you missed the part where Clinton was cleared and didn't commit

either perjury or obstruction.

[sadiesworld]

21. Clinton did not commit perjury.

To have committed perjury the lie (Monica) would have to have been "material" to the underlying case (Paula). Since the Monica affair was consensual, and the Paula case was about non-consensual behavior, the lie was not "material".

Clinton lied under oath, but he did not commit perjury. The clear implication of the lack of materiality is that Starr (in furtherance of his witch hunt, IMO) was asking irrelevant questions.

I believe the same logic applies to the obstruction of justice allegation/charge.

Clinton's lie was unethical, but it wasn't criminal.

(And no, I am not a Clinton "apologist"--don't EVEN get me started on NAFTA, etc.)

[Cheswick2.0]

23. he didn't lie under oath either

I wish our side would get this straight. The court gave him the deffinition of sex and his blow job didn't fit the deffinition. Whether we think it is sex or not is immaterial. He told the truth according to the deffinition given to him by the people in charge of the hearing.

[sadiesworld]

25. I'm perfectly willing to stand corrected...

but I thought the Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's law license due to unethical behavior, i.e., the lie. :shrug:

[DistressedAmerican]

30. I am not certian about the Arkansas thing

although that was how I remembered it.

I found an article talking about his disbarrment from the U.S. Supreme court bar:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/11/09/clinton.bar/index.html

[Cheswick2.0]

39. This doesn't make him a felon as you have claimed

in fact I think it is the Arkansas court which has set a dangerous precidence. But in any case, Clinton was never found guilty of lying under oath, which by the way is not necessarily perjury.

[Cheswick2.0]

37. they might have done so, but it doesn't change the fact that he was not

found guilty of lying under oath. He agreed to take the penalty to stop the merry go round, but he was never found quilty. In fact even Ken Starr's report said so.

[DistressedAmerican]

41. Read the censure resolution again

You are correct in saying that it was the Democratic compromise to end the thing. Without it, there is a good chance he would have become an involuntary prvate citized at the time.

[Cheswick2.0]

45. now you are just making shit up

the impeachment failed.

And please don't think I am falling for your bait and switch. The court of Arkansas with which he compromised had no ability to remove him from office and his comprmise with them happened long after the impeachment failed to remove him from office.

The impeachment failed bud, the senate did not support the congress. Clinton won, he was found guilty of NOTHING. Still pisses you off doesn't it?

[DistressedAmerican]

51. Yeah it does

Crime is crime regardless how it is phrased. If he didn't think he was skirting perjury why did he conduct a poll on doing it before hand. He knew what he was doing. He got away, that much is true. Just proof of his lawyering skills and bipartisanship.

The court thing was not an argument of mine, just another example that many legal minds found him TOO SHADY to be allowed to practice law. If he is too shady to practice it, he is too shady to enforce it. However, as you note it is an irrelevancy to this discussion beyond that.

[Cheswick2.0]

52. Legal minds of the right wing partisan variety do not impress me

[DistressedAmerican]

65. Can you name one of these rightwingers?

You assert that it was just right wingers who had him removed from the bar. Who are they? What is the composition of the Bar Association? You dismiss without a shred of proof to back your claim.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. I guess you buy Clinton's bullshit line

"It depends on what your definition of is is." That is legalistic semantic crap. If it was coming out of Bush's mouth you'd be pounding him into the dust (deservedly so).

Why are we willing to accept lies from Dems but not Repugs? If they are not ALL held to a high standard, it just emboldens them.

As to his guilt - Remember the censure motion? The same folks that decided the charges did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense found him guilty of the actions (and yes some dems agreed).

Choose to think he didn't if you want. I firmly believe that he perjured himself. He did have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. The definition was along the lines of "physical contact with the genitals for the purposed of sexual arousal." I get a BJ is not for arousal, just stress management. I firmly believe that hiding gifts that were under congressional subpoena IS clearly obstruction of justice. Sending Vernon Jordan out to get her a high paying job any or may not fit. However, they are certainly indicative of the covering-up that was going on.

I reiterate, let one get away with it (Dem or Repug) and you make it easier for them all to get away with it. Bush commits perjury and obstruction over the war, tax evasion, whatever, he can't be impeached as we all know now that perjury and obstruction do not rise to the level. Thanks Bill.

[DistressedAmerican]

34. Here's the resolution text:

Drafted by the Democrats: Items 1 and 2 hightlight the Perjury and Obstruction charges although they do not use those exact words.

JOINT RESOLUTION:

It is the Sense of the Congress that -

On January 20, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton took the oath, prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, faithfully to execute the Office of President; implicit in that oath is the obligation that the President set an example of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth; and William Jefferson Clinton has egregiously failed in this obligation, and through his actions has violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of the President and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him,

Be it resolved that:

1. The President made false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate;

2. The President wrongly took steps to delay discovery of the truth;

3. No person is above the law, and the President remains subject to criminal and civil penalties for this conduct;

4. William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, by his conduct has brought upon himself and fully deserves the censure and condemnation of the American people and the Congress; and by his signature on this Joint Resolution, the President acknowledges this censure.

[Cheswick2.0]

42. You guess wrong

The grand jury gave a deffinition of sex and oral sex was not included. Whether you like it or not the law is the law and Clinton was never found guilty of either perjury, lying under oath or obstruction of justice. In fact he was never found quilty of anything.
The partisan congress voted to impeach him and that failed too in the senate. No matter how distressing this is to your sense of hatred for Clinton, those are the facts.

You seem to be more interested in punishing a man for his sex life than the immoral use of the congress for a partisan witch hunt.

[DistressedAmerican]

46. Read my other posts

I don't give a flying fuck about the sex issue. Excuse it as being a moralistic crusade against sexual immorality if you want. II see it as being about holding all politicians accountable.

I am concerned with the felonies. Sex was a distraction from the get go. Again I'll reiterate, the oath does not allow you to lie in the case of embarrassing personal details. People are forced to testify about their sex lives all the time AND there are people serving time for lying under oath about it. What would you tell them. A president can do it if he can find a convoluted rational for it but, you go to jail? Come on. Where's the justice for those folks.

I the Dems can't take a dose of accountability they should not bitch about Bush and how unaccountable his whole administration has been. Accountability goes both ways. Unless it depends what your definition is is.

[Cheswick2.0]

50. Ah..it's not the sex it the lies about the sex....... ROFL

Please show me where Clinton was ever found guilty of either lying under oath or perjury or obstruction of justice. It never happened and he is not a felon.
Just because right wing media says something happened doesn't make it so.

[DistressedAmerican]

86. Just because a criminal is not convicted of his

crime does not mean that the crime never occured. No conviction does not prove non-guilt, especially when political considerations enter into it.

[Cheswick2.0]

90. Yeah that's what the ditto heads all say too

Congratulations, you are just as wrong about justice and the law as they are.

[Pepperbelly]

91. You very clearly do not have even a rudimentary grasp of the facts.

Your post should embarrass you.

[DistressedAmerican]

28. Clinton and Dick Morris thought it didn't

or at least that as a lawyer Clinton could make that case. I read the definition and in my book the BJ certainly qualifies.

On the other hand, I'd blow him myself if it would get Bush out and him back in.

[Pepperbelly]

93. the only source for that scurrilous lie brayed far and wide ...

was, in fact, Dick Morris. No one else was present when the alleged coversation took place. And if you just accept Morris' assertion without anything further for substantiation, you should re-exam your criteria for detemining fact.

[DistressedAmerican]

97. Agreed that Morris is scurrilous dog

but, give me one motivation he'd have to lie. It hurt him with his powerful boss and buddy, Clinton. The guy with all the motive to lie was Clinton and he NEVER denied the report. Speculation beyond that is just that speculation.

[Pepperbelly]

99. Clinton never granted Morris enough credibility to respond and

for you to ask what motive Morris had, do you realize what shape he was in when he made that accusation? His "career" was in shambles after the toe sucking episode and he was shopping himself around to the right wing anti-Clinton industry to see what he could get.

We all know now, don't we?

He is now a right wing pundit who gets his beans and cornbread from Newscorp, a regular "contributor" to the New York Post and a rent-a-pundit for Fox Snooze. Morris is a lying son of a bitch who had an axe to grind. And you're taking his word?

:eyes:

Whatever.

[DistressedAmerican]

33. Found an interesting article on the definition issue

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/time/clinton.html

(snip)
With that, Clinton may have been given the room to offer a technically "true" denial to the question of whether he had sex with Lewinsky--even if she happened to perform fellatio on him. The truncated definition characterizes sex in terms of a checklist of body parts, including the genitals, breast and thigh. Oral sex would not necessarily require the President to touch anything on Lewinsky that appears on that list. Strange as it may sound, under one reading of the definition, Lewinsky could have been having sex with him (because she was "touching" the President's genitals) while at the same moment, he was not having sex with her. (At the deposition, Clinton wasn't asked if she had sexual relations with him, just if he had them with her.) Isn't the law a wonderfully intricate device?

I guess she had sex with him with out him having sex with her. great defense.

[DistressedAmerican]

32. Several sitting judges disagreed with you on this.

[Pepperbelly]

94. LOL ... that rat bastard repubican Silberman on the DC circuit?

I fart in his general direction and it is I who hold him in contempt.

[Q]

10. We're talking about Republicans and Democrats...

...not even WILLING to look at serious investigations into the crimes and misdeeds of the Bush administration. These are serious subjects that range from ethics violations to outright crimes against the state.

How can any honest politician overlook these things? If they feel powerless to impeach...why not at least go on the record as opposing these criminal acts?

[justiceischeap]

24. You kinda answered your own question Q

"How can any honest politician overlook these things?"

Keyword honest, technically, you've stated an oxymoran, honest politician.

It is evident this administration (dems and repugs) don't care about honesty. Starting with the 2000 election til now, this administration, house and senate plus the courts are less about honesty and democracy than they are about power, consumption and greed. It really is the root of all evil. It also has to do with the status quo, IMO, Americans who voted for numbnuts and the other repugs aspire to emulate. That's why so many people like him, he's an everyman. He speaks badly, he was a party boy and has a "tough guy" image. People respond to that crap.

I think it's a societal issue to answer why no one is pushing for it (other than a handful of people on this forum - and I mean handful in comparison to the rest of the US).

[Q]

26. But isn't this how...

...Hitler, Stalin and every other totalitarian government rose to power? Certainly you're not saying it could happen here?

[justiceischeap]

31. It could happen anywhere...

The infamous Hermann Goering quote from the Nuremberg Trials:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

[DistressedAmerican]

98. Thanks a lot for that quote

I don't think I have read it before. Very useful for future rallying. Those who ignore the past truely ARE doomed to repeat it. As an archaologist, I can tell you that history is littered with the wreckage of empires that fell through hubris, the making of international enemies where there were none and over extention of military forces.

[mattclearing]

15. The mid-term rule was broken.

Most administrations are tempered by the fact that mid-term Congressional elections always punished the new President until 2002. The 2002 mid-terms rewarded George W. Bush and company for their scare tactics, and thus emboldened them to do whatever the hell they wanted.

The fact that they were already managing many of the congressional candidates through a combination of strong-arming, fundraising threats, and message discipline compulsion and the threat of supporting other candidates in the primary should they not fall in line, made it that much easier for them to expect total lockstep compliance.

[Q]

17. Does anyone remember why Nixon resigned from office?

Among other things...didn't it have something to do with a 'slush fund' to pay operatives to spy on and pull 'dirty tricks' on the Democrats?

Hoe many think that Bush DOESN'T have such a slush fund?

[indepat]

18. Very simple: Barry Goldwater proclaimed extremism in the defense

of liberty is no vice whereas those now in Congress have joined in extremism in the destruction of liberty for partisan political gain and total power and control so they could implement an extreme ideology foreign to our Constitution and founding principles. It is party, power, and ideology over country, plain and simple.

[Jose Diablo]

35. What happened to bipartisan enforcement of ethics?

Just look how this thread got hijacked into irrelevancy about Clinton's BJ.

Same principle is operating in DC. The real news is driven to irrelevancy by corp and neocon thugs. We have a crummy bunch of repub senators and congressmen too. If exposed, they stick together. Turning criminal behavior into partisan politics.

As for partisan politics using impeachment to remove an opponent, look at JF Kennedy. Christ, he got assasinated because his political opponents wanted him out of the way. And they got clean away with it. Smothered the investigation, buried all evidence under 'national security', killed a president. Can you believe what has happened? It is not a Clancy novel, this really happened.

Edit: correct clancy's name

[Q]

38. Yes...it's not a novel...

...and if things can't be covered up by the corporate media...there's always the time-honored approach of classifying and hiding the dirty details under the guise of 'national security' secrets.

It appears that in our nation's capital...most everyone has something to hide.

It bothers me that when the topic of impeachment comes up...some otherwise well-meaning posters will automatically bring up the Clinton impeachment and how he 'deserved' it. Well...the American people didn't deserve to have ANY president impeached for reasons other than outlined in the Constitution.

[Jose Diablo]

43. Your purpose of the thread, why hasn't Bu*h been impeached?

still begs an answer. If ANY president despirately needs to be impeached, it's Bu*h.

And again, the repub congress refuses to rise to the challenge because I think, they are morally bankrupt.

Thats as close as I can come to why. Or maybe impeachment during war wouldn't look so good. Maybe some would view congress as also owning the sins Bu*h has done.

[Q]

49. But can every single Republican in DC be 'morally bankrupt'?

There has to be something more to it than that. Or perhaps I have too much faith in America to believe that not one Republican or Democrat would stand up and say enough?

[Jose Diablo]

58. I wonder about that Delay fellow

I wonder if maybe, congress critters have been threatened, with physically or professional retribution.

Delay doesn't seem to fit the mold of just a politician, he seems far more base.

In would offer an explaination that the reason Bu*h has not been impeached could be that evryone knows he is a criminal, and will not stop at just political tricks in his revenge.

[DistressedAmerican]

40. That's what I am asking in "hijacking" the discussion

what ever happened to bipartisan enforcement of ethics? when a dem is a lying ass we give them the benefit of the doubt. If a repug does exactly the same we want to string 'em up. I say hold them all accountable or they only get bolder in their scamming. The fact that a president got away with two unpunished felonies was a direct result of people lining up on one party's side or another is a perfect example. I am crossing that line and calling a weasel a weasel regardless of party affiliation. I hope others can do the same.

[Q]

44. Who gave Clinton the 'benefit of doubt"

He was impeached for hell sakes...and many Democrats participated despite the evidence that he had committed no 'high crimes'.

And once again you're intimating that Clinton's lies and Bush's lies are somehow equal. Clinton lied about sex...something that had nothing to do with his oath of office or his duties related to the presidency.

Bush's lies have taken this nation unecessarily to war and has direclty caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people. That my friend, is TREASON.

Not to mention his obstruction of justice in the matters of 9-11 and his relationship to the Saudi and bin Laden families. This is clearly aiding and abetting the enemy...especially when one considers that Bush has 'classified' any and all information about his friends in the Saudi government financing terrorism.

[DistressedAmerican]

56. The law makes NO such distinction

Want such an exception, work to change the law. Until them, the law does not care if it is murder or a BJ. Perjury is perjury. Take the oath and lie, you are a felon.

We agree on the Bush guilt. However, it will be harder to push now as the law makes no distinction. Clinton's perjury may have been about lesser issues. However, it does not matter in the eyes of the law. If we can get Bush on treason, that's great. However, after Clinton, we will not get him on perjury or obstruction.

[Q]

78. The law makes such exceptions all the time...

...When a white collar criminal committs a felony...they either are put on probation or slapped on the hand. GWB is a prime example of this when he committted insider trading and other shady deals and wasn't even investigated. Martha Steward committed no crime beyond lying...but she went to prison.

I don't know why and I'm not sure I care to...but you spout the RWing talking points about the Clinton impeachment almost word for word.

Have you ever read anything by the scores of Constitutional Scholars that wrote before and during the impeachment that the house managers had no cause to impeach? Even they said that no high crimes had been committed.

Justice might have a chance if you and so many others would put as much passion into why Bush should be impeached instead of rationalizing the Clinton Inquisition.

[DistressedAmerican]

80. They should all be held to account

Sorry, if looking for equality under the law sounds RW to you.

I don't remember reading any special laws that were written for the white collar criminals that differs from the one for the rest of us. You are talking about enforcement. NOT a distinction that exists in the laws itself.

Your argument just justifies the inequities in the enforcement end. By your logic that must be fine with you. It is not fine with me. It reminds me of another argument that was being thrown around liberally those days. I heard a lot of people saying we shouldn't go after Clinton because all presidents lie. I guess you think we should keep letting them get away with it.

Again how's 'bout the folks serving time for committing perjury about their affairs? Where is their justice?

For the record I am completely with you Re a Bush impeachment. Any suggestions on how we can get that done?

[Jose Diablo]

48. Not to drive this thread into irrelevancy again, but

It has been pointed out above about Clintons so called 'perjury'. I need not say more.

I wouldn't call either of them weasels. But I would call one of them, Bu*h, a criminal. And for that he should be impeached.

I cannot call Clinton a criminal, nor can you.

[DistressedAmerican]

53. Clearly I can and I am

You can disagree if you want. That's fine with me.

As to Bush, we are clearly in agreement.

[Q]

57. It's not a disagreement...

...it's your misrepresentation of the facts that's getting in the way of agreeing.

Ask yourself: do you really believe that the Founders didn't know the difference between high crimes and lies without consequence? They put the impeachment clause in the Constitution as a means to remove a president who committed actual crimes against the state.

And as it turns out...your excusing the impeachment of Clinton for other than high crimes makes a mockery of the word justice and excuses Bush's treasonous behavior.

[DistressedAmerican]

61. So unless I agree with your interpretation of the facts

I am getting in the way of agreement. I don't even understand that logic. I believe what we have here is an honest "disagreement".

Your argument sounds like Bush's argument about only putting strict constructionists on the bench. If the founders wanted to enumerate all specific charges that were impeachable offenses they would have listed them in detail. They left it vague to allow for interpretation. Where does it say that perjury and obstruction ARE NOT "high crimes and misdemeanors". remember they said high crimes AND misdemeanors. Not just high crimes. If the wanted it limited to treason they would have left it at that. They did not.

I believe that these two crimes undermine the very legal system itself. they are an attack on the state.

I honestly don't understand the last point you make. Can you clarify.

[Cheswick2.0]

66. they didn't say high crimes OR misdemeanors

again facts are getting in the way of your argument.

[DistressedAmerican]

68. What exactly do YOU think rises to the level?

Lets start there. What do you think IS impeachable? As noted, the founders did not enumerate them. They left it open to interpretation. What's yours?

[Cheswick2.0]

64. yes but you disagree with your own made up set of facts

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. You have made a lot of false claims of fact on this thread.

[DistressedAmerican]

71. Please list my incorrect facts.

I do not get your claim. Where are my facts off? I call him a felon with which you disagree because he was never convicted. I guess if you shoot someone but, do not get convicted you never killed them?

What facts are you talking about? The Dick Morris poll, the hiding of subpoenaed evidence under Betty Curry's bed, the fact that several federal judges found that the argument was relevent, his disbarrment, What?

[Cheswick2.0]

88. You said he commited fellonies

You said he was found guilty of perjury and obtruction of justice. Neither of those things is true.

He wasn't even guilty of lying under oath. The republicans played a legal game and they lost. Clinton was a better lawyer.

You know they Clinton hating left is just as wrong as the Clinton hating right when they try to use the phony impeachment to claim he hurt the country. It is nothing but bullshit partisanship.

[Pepperbelly]

100. he is not a felon because he did not violate the law.

The Dick Morris thing we have already dealt with. Anyone who would take Dick Morris' word over Clinton is a swearing match has already demonstrated such a profound lack of appreciation of the nature of evidence, the nature of the law, and the nature of proof that I am not sure there is really anywhere else to go.

The so-called hiding of subpeoned evidence is hogwash because at the time, the items of which you speak were not under subpeona. How could that possibly be obstruction and under what statute? Besides that, the motivation of Curry or Clinton was not demonstrated by any form of evidence and what Clinton and Curry testified carries the day. All there was on the other side was a dislike of what they told them.

Perjury? Please. If Clinton had answered in any other way in the Jones case, it would have been perjury. He answered the question that was asked. It was not his role to interpret the questions as to what the opposing lawyers meant rather than what they asked.

You sound like you're about to start hyperventilating like a fucking ditto head over Clinton. What is your trip? Getting outraged over ancient history that you have dead wrong is no way to win friends or influence people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. I've long thought that Clinton's impeachment was payback for

the removal of Bob Packwood from the Senate.

Packwood kept getting re-elected, mostly by Oregon women, on the basis of his pro-choice stance. (I talked myself blue in the face to some of my female colleagues about how his Dem appointment was also pro-choice, but they had this fixed idea about needing to reward him for being a pro-choice Republican.) However, the appearance of financial corruption was overwhelming, especially when he and Dan Rostenkowski co-authored the bipartisan tax "reform" bill of 1986, which cut middle-class tax breaks in order to pay for tax breaks for individual corporations.

So what did they get him on? Sexual harassment. If they had gotten him on financial corruption charges, his fate would have been as obscure as that of Rostenkowski, who served prison time for mail fraud in the 1990s. But the sexual harassment charges made him the laughing stock of the nation, and you could hardly turn on a talk show without hearing Bob Packwood jokes.

Packwood had been in the Senate a long time and had a lot of powerful friends. I think that when the Republicanites realized that the standard bearer of the Democratic Party had his own problem with controlling his impulses, they couldn't resist the temptation to go after that and make Clinton even more of a laughing stock.

[Jose Diablo]

62. I also think Clinton's impeachment has a lot to do with the Internet

even though the Internet has opened another news media channel, and thats good, it also can serve as a prod to the news media to keep stories alive.

Clinton was raked over the coals on many Internet boards, I think that kept the news media interested. Maybe not the only reason as the news media also had an interest in showing a 'morally bad man' as president, and what could be more wrong than a BJ? I am being sarcastic here, I cheered Clinton when I heard, except it seemed to be wrong to get one where he worked, seemed somehow undignified. Maybe he should have rented a room away from the WH.

Think about it, practically every president has had a dolly, yet by and large, who cared? Gossip columns maybe, but certainly not front page news. Until Clinton. We as Americans have somehow become very moral upstanding people it seems. Nobody I know is really that upstanding but I guess they are out there someplace.

Now days, thats all the news concerns itself with. It's like the checkout counters at grocery stores now. The news media doesn't hardly report anything of real value now.

But this is off topic as to Bu*h, or is it?

[Cheswick2.0]

67. I think he was impeached because he beat bush in the race for Pres

and they had an aggenda they wanted to get accomplished. The investigations of clinton were a direct result of those started during the 1992 Presidential race.

[DistressedAmerican]

69. Here is what I will say was WRONG

with the impeachment effort. The investigation SHOULD NOT have moved from Whitewater to Monica under Starr. The issues were NOT related.

However, once compelled to testify truthfully, he should have done it. Then I'd be the biggest Clinton supporter out there. he was afraid of the blowback. Again, I offer the Dick Morris poll as PROOF of a clearly premeditated cover up of the activity.

[DistressedAmerican]

63. While I in no way condone bipartisan witch hunts

It was pretty studid to get caught with his pants down during a sexual harassment suit. You are most likely correct that it was extra motivation for the repugs. On the other hand, if I has that dirt on Bush, I'd certainly used it. Clinton was guilty of the cover up AND extremely poor political judgment. Don't give them an excuse to launch a partisan witch hunt. That's what I say.

[Q]

102. Fortunately...stupidity is not a 'high crime' or Bush would have been gone

...long ago. The sexual harassment suit was dismissed.

The only 'cover up' Clinton was guilty of was covering up his affair. Compare that to Bush covering up his relationship with the Saudis and bin Ladens. Compare covering up a blow job to Bush's obstruction of justice in the 9-11 investigations and so many other things that it's diffiicult to keep track.

Remember that GOPers didn't 'launch' a witch hunt based on MonicaGate. They started out with Whitewater and went on one the most expensive fishing expeditions in history. They were determined to impeach and they would have found a 'reason' without SexGate.

[greenohio]

70. We had that once? When was that?

[DistressedAmerican]

72. We never have and it is a cancer that has been eating

us from the get go. These folks love to give lip service to bipartissanship. They never actually practice it. However, I would be hard pressed to compromise with the Repugs.

[greenohio]

59. Good post. Reagan&Nixon had a Dem congress. Clinton had a repuke one.

We must win in order to force rule of law. Sad but true.

[Jose Diablo]

73. That seems to be the key

The executives come and go from either party, but it seems like only the Dem congress will enforce ethical behavior.

[Q]

74. But history shows that it was a Republican congress...

...that was just as hard on Nixon as the Democrats. So I'm not convinced that it was the Democratic majority that pushed for investigations or forced Nixon to resign. As it turns out...it was Repubilcans who pushed the hardest when the facts became known.

Reagan got off because IC Walsh feared that he he was suffering from dementia and couldn't really be expected to testify. VP Bush however was caught lying and hid his diaries from investigators. In was in fact Democrats in this case that decided not to proceed...especially after they gave immunity to too many witnesses.

And I seem to remember that the Republicans only had a majority in one house...starting in 94.

[greenohio]

76. Doesn't history show that Nixon had a Democratic congress?

His party did turn on him, but the party in power, who organized the hearings, were Democrats.

[Q]

79. I can't help you with history...

...that's something you have to do on your own. It was indeed Republicans that wouldn't drop it and met with Nixon to advise that he resign.

[greenohio]

87. Apparently.

The Republicans, weren't in power and didn't have the votes to stop it. Yes there were defections, Dems were behind the wheel as the repukes "went along for the ride."

[DistressedAmerican]

77. Great point!

What this shows is that if Bush becomes a large enough political liability they may consider it. The question becomes how do WE make that large of a liability?

[Jose Diablo]

82. I hate to say this

but I fear for the safety of our young ones in Iraq. I think the capabilities of our forces over there are over extended.

I think very shortly, there will be a very bad defeat. Contrary to what is being told, the troops are very exposed and quite literally in the center of a bunch of very pissed-off people, with weapons. And far out numbered.

I think Iraq is gonna hand Bu*h his head on a political platter. I won't be happy though, because many of our youth will not be coming home.

But Iraq is not the only thing.

Bu*h has got to be the biggest screw-up to have ever held that office. Be thankful he is a Republican.

[DistressedAmerican]

85. I agree tat the war is his most vulnerable point

Unfortunately, I don't see impeachment coming out of it. I think it will just fester and the casualties will grow until we see an increase in anti-war sentiment that will eventually result in our coming home.

Just like Vietnam, it will take some time until we hit critical mass on the casualties we are ready to bear to disarm an unarmed man. At that point the dynamics will change. The first year in Vienam we took 56 KIA. One year later that number had jumped to over 5,600. I fear it is the same tragectory we see in Iraq. The body count continues to grow month by month. There was not too much noise in the opening year of the Vietnam war. It took causualties to remind people that we should not enter elective wars.

I'm glad to say I opposed it from the get go. We get stronger on the issue everyday. Unfortunately as you note the price for this enlightenment are Dead Americans, Iraqis and others. Sad.

I am interested in the Saudi oil contacts, myself. U.S. policy by the Saud's for the benefit of the Saud's and those in bed with them. There has to be something prosecutable about those dealings.

[Dr Fate]

75. Republican control of media & Democratic cowardice to challenge it.

n/t

[Q]

81. The crux of the matter is that...

...from Nixon until Bush...here was a process in place that at least investigated and held hearings on White House ethics and wrongdoing. But now that process has completely disappeared. Is it because of the corporate media? That they've become stenographers for the Bushies? Is it that the media is owned and operated by those who share Bush's ideology?

I submit that it's all of these things and something else: a Democratic congress unwilling to put their careers at stake to protect the American people from despotism.

[DistressedAmerican]

84. Where are the Woodward's and Bernstein's?

I really do not think the media is the only source of our ills. I think it can be an excuse not to do anything in the face of their "power". Not that I am indicating that you were claiming that. But, I do see a lot of posts that read like we are already dead in the water due to the media.

However, I would agree strongly with the previous poster who said that the death of investigative is a real problem. Let's recall who brought down Nixon, it wasn't the Repugs or the Dems. It was Woodward and Bernstein. Where are the folks digging into Bush's actions? I just don't see it. With the exception of the disastrous Rathergate episode. That just made Americans more skeptical of Anti-Bush claims.

[EVDebs]

103. Woodward was doing Watergate for the military intel purposes

Check his background at

http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr196-woodward.html

"Three days after graduating from Yale, Woodward was sent by the U.S. Navy to Norfolk, Virginia, where he was commissioned as an ensign by none other than U.S. Senator George Smathers from Florida. Bob's assignment was to a very special ship, called a "floating Pentagon," the U.S.S. Wright. The ship was a National Emergency Command Ship-a place where a President and cabinet could preside from in the event of a nuclear war. It had elaborate and sophisticated communications and data processing capabilities. It had a smaller replica of the war room at the Pentagon. It ran under what was called SIOP-Single Integrated Operation Plan. For example, in the event of nuclear war, the Wright was third in line to take full command if the two ahead of it, the Strategic Air Command in Omaha (SAC) and NORAD, were rendered incommunicado. Woodward-straightfacedly-told authors Colodny and Gettlin (Silent Coup) that he guessed he was picked for the ship because he had been a radio ham as a kid."

Now read Bob Harris on "Deep Throat"

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/07.03.97/scoop-9727.html

and tell me what you think of Woodward now.

The military wants us to be in Iraq to the end; they don't really consider the body count or the damage to the US budget, just the DoD's consolidation of power over Congress and the people.

We have to end the war by cutting off funding ... sadly, this isn't going to be a swift process. Impeachment depends upon the public's awareness of how they are being shafted and denied the information I just gave to you. Pass it along.

[tx_dem41]

83. The average citizen is too dumb and/or lazy to do anything about it. n/t

[ArtVandaley]

89. After Watergate, investigative journalism decided to retire

Figured they'd peaked, why try to "get to the bottom" of anything else.

[Jose Diablo]

92. If we think about it, what do we really have to bring him down

We have the lies leading to the IWR, but he had Tenent fall on his sword for that.

We have or had AWOL, yet what about that is impeachable today. Even cocain use won't hurt him being its 30 years ago.

We have Plame, but I haven't heard diddly about that for a while. Maybe Fitz was forced to wait until after the election and swearing in. I don't know.

We had Cheney's energy meeting notes, but Scalia screwed that deal, besides thats Cheney.

Edit: I think he had beforehand knowledge of 9-11, maybe he thought is was just a hijacking, but still he knew something was gonna happen and he let it happen. But how to prove it?

What do we really have? I know he is dirty, but what do we have that is provable?

[IndyPriest]

95. Fear, and the sale of distraction as comfort

I have come to not underestimate the power of fear and, coupled to it, the sale of distraction as comfort. It's a one-two punch that will knock the good sense out of nearly an entire population.

I used to think that mass hysteria was for folk tales. Not anymore. Anxiety is a HUGE motivator and The BushCo are masters at inflaming it.

They come on the scene at a moment when Americans are rich and anxious, and the "sale" of distraction is a piece of cake.

I also think a large portion of the country is stunned to face the possibility that we have someone in the WH who's quite possibly nuts. And we honestly don't know what to do about it. We haven't had a leadership group that has been as obviously a bunch of murderous thugs, and that's hard to face. Denial is easier. And when entertainment is as cheap and plentiful as it is -- well, we have what we have.

The spiral between fear and distraction is tight, and it's going to be tough to break.

[Jose Diablo]

96. Adding one more thought on impeach-ability

Paul O'Neil related in the book, "The Price of Loyalty" that in any staff meeting with more than just Bu*h's closest advisor's (Cheney, Rumsfield and Rove) it is not a planning meeting like as in "what do we do". It is more like "this is what we are gonna do". The decisions are already made. But by who? Bu*h never places himself in a position where anybody could testify that Bu*h decided this, or ordered that.

He is like Al Pacino in that movie "The Devil's Advocate" where nothing can be charged back to him. All that stuff going on around him, but it is Eddie that will take the fall. All Bu*h needs to do is say he had no personal knowledge of anything.

The worst that could happen is someone close could be indicted, but then Bu*h just pardons them. It goes nowhere.

You can bet that anything indictable back to Bu*h will only be discussed at his ranch and only with those he can trust. You don't really think he is taking all those vacations do you? He is working in a secure location when on that ranch. Secure from the ones at the WH that could leak information that placed a damning decision traceable to him.

I am not saying he won't somehow be forced out, but as for something criminal staining him personally, it just won't happen. He won't so much as get a speck of dirt from this dirty administration. Nor will his advisor's ever serve time, he will just pardon them.

[electric-eye]

104. Well, 9*11 happened, anthrax happened, Wellstone happened.

it wasn't that long ago that criticizing bush was considered treason by many.

9*11 happened, and after acting like the clueless coward he is, rove or one of those other pigs put bush on a pile of rubble with a blowhorn and a fireman.

And a nation swooned, many irretrievably in a state of perpetual worship of bush.


The people were shocked senseless, many never to recover. Stuck in code red.

Then the media met anthrax.

And a defiant Senator met his death.
.

Behavior changed.


And I have been baffled, as you seem to be, by the sheer mass of those who are supposed to protect our freedoms and rights and way of life instead putting something, whatever it is, above their duty to put the nation first. To put us first.

Something apparently comes before the good of the nation. Before us. Something apparently is more important to those sworn to protect US. While a few notable heroes rose, Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinnich and Paul Wellstone come to mind, many seem to have a higher focus than the USA . They have pledged allegiance to something else seemingly.

Or maybe they're just coming out of the daze of "it all."