Lots of politicians have affairs, that's nothing new, impeachment is a bit much. (his wife should have taken care of the punishment, which i'm sure would have been much worse.) \n\nWhy isn't the current president impeached for lying to the American public about the WMD's that were never found and launched us into a no-win war. Shouldn't he used all this grand country's troops to find the man who actually caused 9/11, Bin Laden, instead of picking a fight with saddam.\nWhy is Bin Laden still not caught??!! don't we have the world's best and advanced military?
126267
That's several different questions, and I hope you don't mind if I actually try to answer them instead of just enthusiastically agreeing.\n\nThe situation with Clinton was a little more serious that it appeared on the surface. The Russian Duma (their Pariliament) actually considered taking a vote to ask Monica to use WHATEVER influence she had over Bill to get him to pull US troops out of places in Europe. They didn't ask her, but they were looking into it. (You can verify that they voted against the idea, but they were considering it.)\n\nThis would short-circuit the ENTIRE electoral process. Bill wouldn't be the President, Monica would be the President-- or whoever she took HER orders from. \n\nDon't you think there's something wrong with an unelected woman having accces to the president, influencing and  affecting his decisions for the entire country...? \n\n[At least, if Bill had been getting any satisfaction from his wife, she would have had the power she was craving, and he wouldn't have had to go looking elsewhere. She missed a safe bet, there. At lesat then he would have been getting it from a legitimate source. But I suppose that was too low for even her to stoop....]\n\nWe wouldn't allow a drug addict to run the country, because we know that the real power behind him would be his supplier, who held the strings. Same with a man who was a sex addict.\n\nNow, on to the next question. Two years ago, when our soldiers first got into Baghdad, there were reports that they had found tractor-trailer loads of hundred dollar bills. Now the hundred IS the most widely circulated bill outside the US. It's a large denomination bill. \n\nBut, by the same token, they don't circulate very fast and wear out, the way ones do. I doubt that the US mint prints a tractor trailer load of hundreds in the course of a year. And they had several of them? Where did they come from? \n\nWell the first step is to realize that Saddam sent his representatives to Switzerland, to the manufacturer,  and bought several of the same pringing presses that the US Mint uses to print money. (this is a matter of public record.) They are multi-story machines weighing many tons and costing probably a hundred million a pop. But did old Saddam bat an eye? No. Why not?\n\nBecause he knew he could recoup his investiment very quickly. Those hundreds never saw the US Mint. \n\nNo wonder he could afford palaces with solid gold toilet seats! No wonder he offered $25000 to the family of each Palistinian suicide bomber who killed an American!\n\nThere's additional evidence. Remember at the time of the first Gulf War how we changed our money, updating it with all the new security features...? And after our soldiers entered baghdad, we also updated it, adding the colors...?\n\nThat's twice we changed our money. There's an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." What were we fixing...? The fact tha Saddam was counterfeiting US currency on an unheard of scale, weakening our economy and hindering our interests all over the world!\n\nTalk about an unconventional weapon of mass effect! \n\nIf he'd had nukes, I dont doubt that he would have used them. It's Saddam's own fault for shooting off his mouth and bragging that he would have them soon. He didn't do one thing to counter the erroneous intelligence which everybody believed. He wanted us to think that he had them. \n\nIf a man aims a gun at a cop, the cop doesn't need to stop and check whether it's a real gun or a water pistol. That man is simply bought and paid for. If he didn't want to get shot, he shouldn't have threatened the cop.\n\nThe current war in Iraq is a mistake in the sense that if we'd done the job properly the first time, it wouldn't have been necessary to go back there. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say.\n\nBut-- can you see Bush going public with the news, or even publicly referring to it...? Wides
634903
yeah go toot that horn somewhere else. Do you not know all the lies that Bush told to send our young men to war? What I say is why don't they stay out of peoples bedrooms and take care of the boardroom. Who gives a shit if Clinton got a little on the side and lied. do you know a man who has cheated who admitted it from the start? Not! Maybe if Bush would get a little on the side his mind wouldn't be so full of shit he might be able to speak in complete intelligible sentences. I would much rather have a lie about sex than a lie about lives.
256573
This whole war is but one gigantic global farce. Bush's approval rating is so low that he should have been impeached months ago and the war stopped immediately taking into consideration the thousands of lives it has already claimed. The problem is all the money that has been put into this madness and the  lobbies that are behind the scenes. So it is, once again ladies and gentlemen, for money that so many more lives shall be sacrificed and twice as many lies be told.
347620
You think impeachment proceedings are something to celebrate? Most Americans tend to think that such things are a black eye on the entire country, and nothing to be eager to initiate. \n\nThose who are so eager are simply and childishly trying for "payback" after Clinton was impeached (on ridiculous charges, I might add... if the GOP just HAD to put us all through that mess, they should have stayed substantive, with things like Chinese political contributions in exchange for nuclear missile technology, etc. There certainly was no shortage of more viable options.)\n\nEmbroiling us all in this kind of political game-playing should be something that we all disdain, not relish.
330339
I don't know why he hasn't been impeached yet, except for the total lameness of the Democrats. Imagine what the Republicans would have done to Clinton if he had done the things Bush has:\n1. Totally wrong about WMDs (I'm being charitable here, I actually think he lied through his teeth).\n2. Sanctioned torture.\n3. Sanctioned kidnapping of foreign citizens.\n4. Established secret prisons outside the US so he could torture the kidnapped foreign nationals.\n5. Established public prisons like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo to hold people without trial, apparently forever.\n6. Used the NSA to spy on American citizens, contrary to law and the Constitution he swore to uphold.\n7. Lie about EVERY SINGLE ONE of the points above.\n\nHis claim: "I talk to God." I am sure he's talking to SOMEONE, but I don't think God told him to do all that.
45726
Because W doesn't care about homeland security. He's done nothing but lie, cheat, and steal from the American people since the day he took office. This is gonna blow up in his face tho, i bet now they are gonna wish that that guy that Chenay shot would have died so this wouldn't have come into light. P.S. i've been talking about this for almost a week now but nobody seems to care.
526762
The reason President Bush has not been impeached is that he has not committed an impeachable offense. The liberals’ constant rant that he lied is in fact a lie. He acted on the same information that congress did when they authorized the war in Iraq. He did not lie under oath as Clinton did. In fact, his biggest fault is that he has been brutally honest and the liberals don’t agree with what he has to say. That doesn’t make it a lie. I wish the liberals would come up with a meaningful rant, but I don’t think they’re capable of it.
129401
I certianly hope so.\n\nThe current President of the United States has shown little regard for out 3 tiered system of government and has done quite a few things that are impeachable.\n\nPresident Bush (acording to Libby), authorized the leak of classified information (in effect de-classifying parts of it), which resulted in the outing of a CIA operative as well as her contacts and assets.  He did this to defend the assertion that Iraq was attempting to aquire WMD's.  We now know that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and in retrospect we can see that the President sold out a CIA agent for a lie.\n\nAs Iraq disintegrates beneath us, as Afganistan fades into obscurity, as Osama Bin Laden roams free and we talk about dropping nuclear weapons on Iran, we need to step back and really look at this spoiled child that somehow got into the White House.\n\nCan Bush be impeached?  Oh, yes.  He sure can.\n\nShould Bush be impeached?  Absolutely.  \n\nWill he be impeached?  That is up in the air.  Let's see how the elections go.
207203
Yes where is Bin Laden, at Bush's house having cocktails, and barbecue with Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the GOP boys. I am still waiting for WMD's and they don't seem to be coming. This whole thing has been lie after lie. Congress changes this fall, and I hope to see several investigations going on.
545875
What people don't understand, is during the trial for impeachment, if Bush were found guilty, Cheney would be found guilty of C.A.H. also, and would Not become the next President. \n\nIs this why people are afraid to attempt to impeach Bush?  If an investigation began for impeachment process, we could all see Cheney is the puppet master. \n\nUnfortunately, the Dem's are having to battle a deeply embedded evil power that goes beyond Bush.  Things will only get worse. \n\n.
105309
We are all sorry, but G.W. Bush has not lost his authority.\n\nHe is celebrating the fact that he WAS NOT elected President either time, and he still hasn't got impeached yet.\n \nHe will not his authority until Kenneth Starr or whoever has his job now gets him impeached,\nthere’s still time.\n\nIf they held him to the same standard as past Presidents,\nthey would have done it already.\n\nI mean Clinton only had sex.\n\nBush has committed many impeachable acts.\nSuch as starting a war without the UN.
650218
On what grounds for impeachment?  There is nothing.  WMDs were in fact found in Iraq, and everything he has done is 100% legal.  Read the laws, not the New York Times.
182465
GO FIGURE HUH? \n\nLets get this straight America - he lies about the reason to go to war, he lies about the leak, he lies about the wiretapping program, he lies he lies he lies, and he is still our President. \n\nClinton lied about a blowj*b, and he was impeached. \n\nWTF is America coming to???
270194
First, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Nobody would have cared about BJ's. But our president lied under oath!!\n\nSecond, who says phone calls are private in the first place? When you are on a phone, you are broadcasting anything you say to the world!! People record your phone calls all the time!! Credit card companies, cutomer service reps, you name it. And for Christ's sake, read a little and educate yourself. Unless your talking to a known or suspected terrorist, the government doesn't have the time, energy, or manpower to listen to you talk to your dumb girlfriends about who got kicked off of American Idol, or how fat your ass looks in your new jeans!!\n\nThird, the Red Sox suck!
352967
Don't insult chimps!  Alas, our totalitarian president will not be impeached, as the Democrats are too afraid of disrupting the country despite the fact that Bush broke the law, admitted it and is proud of it.  (If we need totalitarian tools like warrantless wiretaps to fight terrorists, then the terrorists have succeeded in destroying the United States of America.)\n\nHowever, it is important that any impeachment proceedings include the equally evil Dick Cheney.  Bush is bad enough!
66541
It's pretty clear that the president has done some illegal things, such as the warrantless wiretapping.  But only the congress can impeach the president, and as long as the majority of congress are Republicans, they are unlikely to do this.\n\nSo the only realistic way to get him impeached is to elect a majority of Democrats to congress in the fall 2006 election.
38556
Bush is the absolute worst president in our countries current history. He has sent Americans (our chidren) to their death in a country that has not declared war on us. We are at war with hidden enemys who are not brave enough to come out of their holes to face us so we kill innocents to find them (most were saudis)So why are we there? (money,oil). Clinton might not have been a saint. But I'll bet theres a lot folks out there who have lied over some sin(cast the first stone,live in glass houses comes to mind.) I've never heard of a blow-job killing anyone,nor is it my business That should have stayed in their marriage, not the countries how can a wife forgive her husband and the country not? War kills my children your children. YOUR FAMILY is the one who feels the pain from this furtile war. Not from clintons lack of discretion (do you think he was the first? Think Kennedy)Clintons bj never got anyone killed. Bushes war has.