It seems to me that the only way to approach neutralizing Clinton's

[Road Scholar]

impeachment, the stain on his legacy, and giving him some of the credit he earned as one of the best presidents this country ever had is to impeach the hell out of Bush.How about it Ms. Pelosi? Huh? Huh? HUh?:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[papau]

1. Impeaching Bush is morally right - has nothing to do with Clinton. n/t

n/t

(I think you are just pulling my leg - but I thought it best to respond :-) )

[papau]

2. Delete - dup.

n/t

(

[beyurslf]

3. If we impeached Clinton for an affair, should Bush go to jail for his

crimes? It just seems that the bar for impeachment is set so low that it doesn't quite meet the punishment for Bush's misdeeds.

[mcscajun]

4. History will attend to the reputations of both Clinton and the Shrub

and appropriate weight and judgment will rule in both cases. Nothing done to the little bastard currently occupying our WH will impact the legacy of Clinton. Impeachment isn't a game of tit for tat.

I envision future historians making an entry like this regarding Clinton's impeachment:
"When Republicans under Henry Hyde led an impeachment attack against President William Jefferson Clinton, the agenda was clearly political...in the end, Clinton was acquitted."

Impeaching Shrub won't change that in the slightest. If we did impeach the little bastard, the case should be brought because of its own merits (and there are clearly plenty of those.)

[Toots]

5. Well Clinton may have been "Lusty and Lousy and full of fleas and raped

his women in twos and threes" but damn he was a fine President. Bush* on the otherhand is scrubed clean as a whistle and only occasionally has missionary sex but damn what a horrible pResident he is.

[Road Scholar]

6. The shrub is a criminal and impeaching him should be the

first order of business. Clinton didn't deserve what he got from the repubs.I hope history makes clear that distinction.