Again I disagree. It appears right now that the Democrats and in fact the entire media and the world at large are going after Bush.

>My point has been, and still is, that the GOP expended great effort and much money
>going after Clinton.
>
>Why is no one going after them? They certainly are not innocent by any measure.
>There is a real double standard here.
>
>
>
>
>>I do not think that Clinton should have been impeached either, although I do feel that lying under oath is a crime and warrants punishment. I could care less about his affair and what he did or didn't do. Any other citizen would have received jail time at the minimum. It also proves a President untrustworthy and dishonest. Acording to Article II, Section 4, of the constitution, The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. While having an affair is not a crime, lying under oath is so it does fall into the categories. Just to be fair when speaking of deaths, how many would have died at all had Clinton taken care of Bin laden?????
>>
>>>But the point of my post was that Clinton's 'crime' was not something that justified
>>>impeachment. His affiar was a civil matter, as is lying under oath.
>>>
>>>Was the guy a scumball for cheating on his wife? Sure, but take a look at all the
>>>other politicians who did the same. Newt Gingritch(sp?) is a prime example. He was
>>>having an affair while he was the Speaker of the House. And he had an illegal immigrant
>>>working for him. Did he get investigated? Where was the 4 year long, taxpayer funded
>>>witch hunt by a special prosecutor?
>>>
>>>So Clinton had an affair and tried to cover it up. Big deal. Was this the business
>>>of the public? Not in my book.
>>>
>>>Did 2050 american soldiers die because of it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bush will never get impeached and will never fully take the blame because it cannot be proven he willfully lied to anyone or that he even knew what was real intelligence and what was manipulated. Just as it could not be proven that Reagan knew about Iran/Contra. History is scattered with leaders lying: President McKinley led the U.S. into the Spanish American War by lying to the people and stating that the USS Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor by a Spanish mine when it was really sunk by a coal explosion. Hitler told Germany that Poland attacked first. FDR claimed Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack when most know now that that is not true. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Vietnam was escalated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>He lied to congress.
>>>>>
>>>>>The point is, Clinton's affair was not a matter of national security
>>>>>and didn't warrent impeachment.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lying to congress and the american publicv certainly does.
>>>>>
>>>>>And Mike, calling me names in this forum is unwarrented and
>>>>>unprofessional. I will have noting further to do with you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lying to Congress and the American people surely ranks right up there with
>>>>>>>High Crimes and Misdemeaners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really, which law did he break?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's certainly a more serious crime than lying
>>>>>>>to cover up a sexual affair.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Clinton lied under oath. That's called perjury.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's a serious crime. What law did Bush break?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The truth is he didn't break any, so he didn't committ a crime, which means it is 100% false that what Bush did is a more serious criminal act than what Clinton did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't care much about the truth. You care about whatever fuel can be added to your burning desire to feel like a more important chimp than Bush in a macho chest beating competition for alpha-male.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't care about whether or not Iraqis want to be free. You don't care about anything but you and your ego. Bush is more powerful than you, and you're too proud of yourself to let that be acceptable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sniveling little turd.