If Bill Clinton is impeached for his acts.

[Tim4319]

George W. Bush must be impeached, jailed and placed in the cell next to the Enron, MCI Worldcom execs and Martha Steward.

Which is more damaging to the job at-hand? A little extra marital affair, or being a main cause in the deaths of of over 3,000 people on our own soil, and over 500 in Iraq.

Impeach the "Commander-In-Chimp"!

[daveskilt]

1. clap him in Irons!

[marie123]

2. I understood that clinton

was impeached because he lied under oath.

We need to get Bush under oath and then we can impeach him for whatever he lies about

[Q]

10. Presidents take an 'oath of office'...

...which means they're ALWAYS under oath.

[Catherine Vincent]

3. Republicans only impeach democratic presidents.

And right now, they have the majority. It won't happen.

[tjwash]

4. Not gonna happen.

Repugs own the house, senate, and the supreme court, and have already decided that it was much more important to spend millions of US taxpayer dollars, and countless thousands of hours of FBI agent time rooting around in trailer parks, and interviewing UFO sighting conspiracy theory nutbags, to see if any of the women there were with the clenis, than to use that time and money to combat terrorism.

[Free_Thinking1]

5. Maybe a stretch

First, with a Republican majority I don't see it happening. Second, as much as I don't like the guy, I will never believe that Bush was responsible for 9/11. I don't think the blame for that could be laid on any one person. Clinton was in office when the Cole and several embassies were bombed, do you hold him responsible?

All of this "they did it to Clinton, lets do it to Bush" stuff doesn't help our cause, even if he was impeached and jailed, you will still have a repuke in power. Why don't we just focus on the elections in November and get rid of him then?

[Catherine Vincent]

6. So how much don't you like the guy?

Bush and his cronies are responsible for letting 9/11 and should be impeached and forced to leave the White House. But I know it won't happen. Republicans only care about lying about sex.

[Free_Thinking1]

8. I just don't see how they "let it happen"

Seriously, I will blame him all day for things like the war in Iraq, but something like 9/11, in my opinion, isn't really his fault. Had Gore not been screwed out of the White House, it probably would have happened on his watch, would you be blaming him?

Maybe it is just that I don't HATE Bush, I just don't like him. There is a lot of hate here and I am just not that type of person.

[Catherine Vincent]

12. I don't believe 9/11 would have happened on Gore's watch.

Bush fvcked up. He's a disgrace.

[VOX]

21. Agreed. n/t

:kick:

[zbdent]

13. It's not that he knew exactly what was going to happen, but the fact

that he knew something big was going to happen (unless his handlers just had meetings where he was still trying to figure out how to play his Gameboy) and needed the right seed to plant for going to war with Iraq.

Maybe he was expecting one hijacking. All it took was one incident which would send the hawks attacking. Look at the China plane incident. He was posturing around like "GIVE US OUR MEN BACK OR ELSE!" Of course, he couldn't really attack China, they actually had WMDs, and about 800 or so million more people than we do.

Also, as soon as W was in office, he started tearing down as many treaties and agreements with other nations as he could get away with. "My way or the highway!" seemed to be his credo.

December 31, 1999. BIGGEST NEW YEAR'S EVE in a long, long, LONG time. Security and intelligence was mobilized and ready for anything. Any terrorist that wanted to do something probably felt the breath of an FBI agent on the back of his/her neck and said "F-ck it, I'm not gonna do it tonight."

July 2001, Bush and company got info that something big was going on. The essence of their alert: "Kinda keep an eye out for something."

[Free_Thinking1]

14. Seriously, do you think anyone saw that coming

Ok, say he knew something big was going to happen, did he have a date? A time? Could he have locked down the entire country for months at a time waiting for this threat to go away? It really kills me to be defending him right now, but I do think this is one case where he is not to blame.

[zbdent]

15. Oh, I don't know, like when you have somebody whose job it is

to keep an eye out for these things, and she hands in a report that gets squelched saying "Hey, these guys that we've been looking for are learning how to fly 747s without learning how to take off and land, and are paying cash for the lessons"? Maybe you should have done what the RWers said that Clinton should have done with OBL - F the constitution, bring them in and lock them up until they talk.

Or the fact that some "liberal Hollywood type" notices that there are two guys on an NY-LA flight who have been acting unlike any passenger the frequent flyer type has seen before, taking notes on exactly everything the attendants do. Then when this is reported, nobody takes it seriously.

And, of course, the ordering of the investigations called off from OBL and family so that they could find out whether or not Clinton did something illegal in a presidential pardon.

When you are out in the middle of nowhere, and you know that the area is a speed trap, suddenly, you start driving just a mile or two under the speed limit. When you find out that the police force has been called away from that area for good (the heat is off, you start noticing that the people who are on the fringe of your vision no longer are there), you go back to your speeding ways.

It's amazing that the people who scream about the "oppressiveness under Klintoon" were more than happy to investigate the general population and slack off on the actual people who had links to terrorism.

I don't like being called a "terrorist" solely because I decided not to back George W. Bush 100 percent. Read the back cover of Hannity's book to see that they are trying to link anybody slightly left of Rush Limbaugh as being worse than the terrorists.

Seriously, do you think that a guy who admits that he really didn't pay much attention to homework even bothered to read the daily one-page summaries of what's going on, let alone do any deep reading of the things that have a lot of detail?

Or, you have the Right's stance that he's really smarter than he lets on. So, if that's so, then he should have been paying more attention to what was going on.

Like I said, he didn't know an exact date, which planes, what flights, etc. But you pull the cops off the street, and crime goes up. Doesn't take a Yale Tiger on your ass to figure that out.

[alcuno]

19. To me it's a matter of what they did after it happened.

Clinton may have been in power when the Cole was attacked, but the FBI report that said it was Al Qaeda came out in the Spring of 2001. What did the Bush administration do when the report came out? Nothing. Are they responsible for 9/11? No, Al Qaeda is. However, presidents are judged on their performance and it becomes more clear everyday that they were simply on the wrong page. For that they need to be held accountable.

I don't think I hate Bush either, but I'm afraid I'm getting really close to it.

[Old and In the Way]

16. Many reasons.

3000 innocent Americans died on 9/11. Either gross incompetence or pre-knowledge, or pre-planned....take your pick.

The Cole was a US Naval vessel, in hostile waters. Embassies in Africa were guarded, but are an inherent risk.

If this entire administration has criminal culpability in the deaths of 3000 people, aren't you a little concerned that a real national security risk exists as long as these people keep their hands on the levers of power?

Why isn't there an independent prosecuter with full powers of subpeona and power to jail uncooperative witnesses to vet this issue and make sure that if there were crimes committed, we are protecting our national interest in getting these people out of office?

[Free_Thinking1]

17. Or maybe for once....

...we can admit that we were beaten by someone who planned something out very well and executed it even better. I am not going to argue this with you, there is really no point, you are steadfast in your belief that everything that happens during a presidents term in office is his fault (unless it is a Dem.) and I am steadfast in my opinion that, while Bush may be a horrible president, there are things that he isn't to blame for.

[Old and In the Way]

18. You are correct not to argue if you can't defend your position.

As a Bush supporter, I understand why you'd cut him slack....

But I do recall the vicious taste for investigations that Repiublican majority had for Bill Clinton. I remember they conducted an 8 year, $70MM Inquisition on the last popularly elected Democratic President. I remember the hatred and the "Wag the Dog", "You can support the troops, but not support the President", and "Don't show up in my state unless you bring a body bag". I remember how the Republicans sent 100s of FBI agents running around the country chasing rumors from the RW slime machine. I remember how Clinton appointed an independent prosecutor (that was a joke) and volunteered to go under oath. They nailed him for lying about sex, but the impeachment ended with 1 misdemeanor conviction.

So when do we get George Bush to go under oath for his actions pre- and on 9/11? What happened to those Republicans who had such outrage about sex and busted land deals? Wonder why they aren't interested in justice for the 3000 who died on 9/11?

Do you think if this had happened on Bill Clinton's watch that the Republican's would not have had impeachment proceedings underway, say, 24 hours after the attack occurred? I don't....

[Bridget Burke]

20. If you'd heard Clarke last night....

You would have heard his suggestions about what could have been done. There were warnings.

Bush & his handlers protected themselves but stood aside for an event they thought would assist their plans. It worked.

[forgethell]

7. Dream on

if the Repukes could impeach, but not convict Clinton, despite being in the majority in both the House & the Senate, the Dems will never even get a hearing on impeaching Bush.

Besides, even if he was impeached and convicted, all that would happen would be that he was removed from office. He's have to have a trial on some criminal charge to be sent to prison.

Better work on voter registrations.

[Pale_Rider]

9. And on top of it, Cheney would grant a presidental ...

... pardon to Bush. If Ford did it for Nixon, Cheney would follow precedent.

[HydroAddict]

11. I agree, his ass should have been impeached. But...

I don't think it's a wise move to push this so close to elections.

Once, they're out, it should be much easier to put the BFEE shackles, where they all belong. I want the whole crew to go down, not just the chimp.