Even, for arguments sake, if he did intentionally mislead the public, that's not a criminal offense, so you can't point to a high crime or misdemanor to impeach with.

We knew who and what he was and we didn't care because he was a good steward of the State's business.

Clinton's requested resignation, which stems from an investigation that began in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case years earlier, means he would not be allowed to try a case before the Supreme Court. The former president has admitted that his actions "merited censure," said Clinton lawyer David Kendall. Clinton agreed to the Arkansas suspension and a $25,000 fine on the day before his presidency as ended part of a settlement ending the investigation into whether he offered misleading testimony in the Jones case. Those allegations led to the exposure of Clinton's affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, his 1998 impeachment by the House of Representatives and subsequent acquittal by the U.S. Senate. As is its custom, the Supreme Court offered no explanation for the order. Court observers said such suspensions nearly always lead to permanent disbarments.

Didn't he kill 2000 of our soldiers?

sorrows me that he/she can not distingush between the harm delivered to this nation by what Clinton did and what Bush has done.

some experts believe that is a sure sign that Bush commited a crime.

It is possible that Bush is consulting Sharp only out of an excess of caution - despite the fact that he knows nothing of the leak, or of any possible coverup of the leak. But that's not likely. On this subject, I spoke with an experienced former federal prosecutor who works in Washington, specializing in white collar criminal defense (but who does not know Sharp). That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush's move - unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. "It would not seem that the President needs to consult personal counsel, thereby preserving the attorney-client privilege, if he has no knowledge about the leak," he told me.... Suffice it to say that whatever the meaning of Bush's decision to talk with private counsel about the Valerie Plame leak, the matter has taken a more ominous turn with Bush's action. It has only become more portentous because now Dick Cheney has also hired a lawyer for himself, suggesting both men may have known more than they let on.

I want to know why lying about sex warrants impeachment but lying about a justification for war that has killed 1935 and wounded 7700 Americans does not? I want to know why the Republican members of Congress are openly two-faced and get away with it? They are so rankly political that party loyalty comes before loyalty to their country. Isn’t that a form of treason, or at least a violation of their oaths of office?

(by PPJ)What lies are you saying comfort the enemy? Inquiring minds want to know

Pretty much all of them as far as I can tell. Can give me an example of one of his lies that DIDN'T encourage our enemies?

(by PPJ)What lies are you saying comfort the enemy? Inquiring minds want to know Pretty much all of them as far as I can tell. Can give me an example of one of his lies that DIDN'T encourage our enemies?

So you don't have an answer, all you have is a snarky rant. Congratulations.

“Our invasion of Iraq has made it a homeland for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Indeed, I believe that it was the very first time that many Iraqis became terrorists. Before we invaded, they had no idea of terrorism.” "Too late, Mr. President, has no one told you that you’ve succeeded in accomplishing that yourself?"

going to war in Iraq was legal. If you want to make a case against the war, find some more intelligent grounds to use.

Senator Robert Byrd [says] Bush's moves to destroy time-honored Senate rules parallel Hitler's ramming fascist legislation through his gutted Reichstag. "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality," said Byrd. "He recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."

BTW - That's why the "Bush Lies" chants will hurt the Demos. The voter doesn't believe it. All it does is rev up the Demo base. That's dumb.

How can you quote an ex-member of the KKK who throws around the N word?

In other words, it has nothing to do with whether the conduct is "legal" or "illegal"... What this means is that a President can be impeached for any reason that Congress deems appropriate.

The basis for impeachment and conviction, "high crimes and misdemeanors" has nothing to do with criminal law.

I'll bet you had a three-day erection when you heard that.

Don't you think terrorists all over the world celebrated the lie about tracking down bin Laden?

PPJ:

edger - The question to repack was, show me the lies. He hasn't answered.

Jim, if you can't find a single example of Bush lying, you have been remarkably protected from current events.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.

I'm the guy in the back of the room grinning at you. ;-)

Lawyers and historians are still arguing about the exact meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," dividing into three schools of thought about the appropriate definition: (1) serious criminality evidenced by breaking existing law; (2) an abuse of office, and (3) the Alexander Hamilton standard (Federalist 65) of "violation of public trust."

OBL - That was a statement of fact. I think he still wants him, and he is pursuing him. Now you may want to argue tactics, but that isn't a lie.

As to "other countries not needing us" - right. That's as likely as other countries not being interested in the Chinese market, or the Indian technical labor force.

"International Law" is what the powerful countries say it is. ... "Fairness", the UN, whatever else you come up with - it's all irrelevant.

...the consequences for global governance if a pre-emptive strike is successful. Suppose everything goes right, democracy is restored and the Iraqi threat is removed at low cost (a tall order) - the American initiative will set an important precedent, one sure to be invoked by potential imitators. The first, the widest and the most dangerous interpretation is that it would legitimate the proposition that whenever Country A believes, rightly or wrongly, that there is a "clear and present danger" from Country B, it is entitled to attack first. The 19th-century military historian Carl von Clausewitz claimed that war is a continuation of foreign policy by other means, and that attack is often the best defense. A successful U.S. pre-emptive strike against Iraq will, in effect, reinstate both Clausewitz propositions. Under this doctrine, Pakistan could perceive a clear and present danger from India and attack first, or vice versa. Israel and the Arab states could use the same logic to launch quick first strikes.. ... Legitimating unilateral pre-emptive war would set back the clock to pre-Second World War parameters and negate most of the advances in global governance achieved since then. Let's consider a second, slightly milder interpretation: that unilateral pre-emptive strikes are fine as long as they are initiated by a strong power against a much weaker opponent. During the Cold War, the former Soviet Union possessed frightening weapons of mass destruction. Russia still does and so does China. Should all these states be attacked pre-emptively? Pragmatic geopoliticians will answer no; let us just attack the weaker states. The stronger states can be allowed to get away with murder. The precedent then would be: It is fine to attack first as long as you are sure of winning. This notion is almost as dangerous as the first.

Under this doctrine, Pakistan could perceive a clear and present danger from India and attack first, or vice versa. Israel and the Arab states could use the same logic to launch quick first strikes..

"These are words without reason or rhyme, that can mean anything at anytime."

Just think of me, in the back of the room, grinning at you.

In a survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations

Thanks, but can't you afford more? Here I am having to keep up the palatial retirement compound, catfish pond and BBQ Stand and you give quarters?

Jim writes:

edger writes: In a survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations

Are they part of the Chicago Department of State?

As Bush himself once said about his critics, almost in these words: "So what, I'm the President. What are you going to do about it? What do I care what you think?" As long as Bush is in the White House, with all the power at his command, with all his loyalist toadies keeping real-world consequences away from him, he feels that he and his inner circle in the bunker with him are untouchable. And, to date, he has been. So what are you, what are we, going to do about it? I suggest that anti-Bush critical mass is just about achieved in the body politic, especially after the disgraceful, shameful neglect and bungling associated with the Katrina scandal, which led to the deaths of so many American citizens. Nearly two-thirds of those polled these days agree that the Iraq War is a mistake, and the troops should be brought back home soon. Bush's approval rating is now in the high-30% range. If and when in the next few months indictments are unsealed against key Bush Administration officials -- perhaps including not only Karl Rove and Scooter Libby but John Bolton and, maybe as unindicted co-conspirators, Bush and Cheney -- true critical mass could be achieved.