To be equally bipartisan

[longhorn_22]

Not so sadly, I do, but I hardly can recognize it as one in the same.

Well I'll tell you what: if the Democrats actually do impeach Bush for this (or for any of the other reasons that have been recently discussed in certain circles), then I'll be the first to agree that they're being ridiculous.

Seeing as how that hasn't happened, though, (and hasn't even been seriously discussed by anybody that isn't generally considered a zealot), and seeing as how the Republicans actually did waste millions of taxpayer dollars impeaching Clinton for what can only be described as one of the most idiotic reasons imaginable, can we agree that, for now, the score in the "Impeaching Presidents for Idiotic Reasons" contest is Republicans 1, Democrats 0?

You're right; they're not one in the same. Dems have only talked about impeaching Bush for idiotic reasons; Republicans actually did it. Which would you say is worse?

--GL (yawn)

So lying under oath is linked as better than what the dems are talking about impeaching Bush for? I would hardly call lying under oath one of the most idiotic things imaginable to impeach a president for.

[SonomaCat]

He lied under oath about getting a blowjob from an intern as part of a politically motivated civil suit funded by Republicans. Whether he actually got a blowjob wasn't even a central point of the lawsuit ... it was essentially nothing more than a public shaming of a guy who cheated on his wife (who certainly didn't actually care what he did with his willy as long as he was discrete). So do you really think that was a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars?

It was an absurd thing to impeach someone for. It had absolutely nothing to do with his role as President, and was purely done for political reasons. Perhaps somebody should file a civil suit against Bush for some random thing, and then when he is deposed, ask him on video if he ever did coke. If he says no, would you argue that he should be impeached?

At the time, given how things were going so well in virtually every way, it was good theater, and I have to admit that I enjoyed the show. But in retrospect and given the much more serious times in which we live, the whole episode was pathetic.

[Grizlaw]

You're right; they're not one in the same. Dems have only talked about impeaching Bush for idiotic reasons; Republicans actually did it. Which would you say is worse?

--GL

So lying under oath is linked as better than what the dems are talking about impeaching Bush for? I would hardly call lying under oath one of the most idiotic things imaginable to impeach a president for.

The fact that you avoided my last question tells me that you know that I'm right, but I'll humor you with an answer anyway.

Yes, lying under oath is a serious crime. I of all people don't need a lecture about the integrity of our court system and the importance of witnesses telling the truth in judicial proceedings. That's why perjury is a crime, and why, if the appropriate prosecutor believes he has a strong enough case, he should bring criminal charges against President Clinton for perjury.

Having said that -- the standard for impeaching a President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The meaning of that phrase has been debated (especially since the Lewinsky Crisis, as I like to call it), but it has generally been understood to refer to types of misconduct that constitute abuses of official power. Lying under oath would probably qualify in some circumstances, but when the subject of the lie involves whether or not he got a BJ, it's kind of hard to make the argument with a straight face, IMO.

Now, having undergone that exercise, I'll ask again: which is worse, "talking about" impeaching a president for a ridiculous reason, or actually doing so?

--GL

[longhorn_22]

You're right; they're not one in the same. Dems have only talked about impeaching Bush for idiotic reasons; Republicans actually did it. Which would you say is worse?

--GL

So lying under oath is linked as better than what the dems are talking about impeaching Bush for? I would hardly call lying under oath one of the most idiotic things imaginable to impeach a president for.

The fact that you avoided my last question tells me that you know that I'm right, but I'll humor you with an answer anyway.

Yes, lying under oath is a serious crime. I of all people don't need a lecture about the integrity of our court system and the importance of witnesses telling the truth in judicial proceedings. That's why perjury is a crime, and why, if the appropriate prosecutor believes he has a strong enough case, he should bring criminal charges against President Clinton for perjury.

Having said that -- the standard for impeaching a President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The meaning of that phrase has been debated (especially since the Lewinsky Crisis, as I like to call it), but it has generally been understood to refer to types of misconduct that constitute abuses of official power. Lying under oath would probably qualify in some circumstances, but when the subject of the lie involves whether or not he got a BJ, it's kind of hard to make the argument with a straight face, IMO.

Now, having undergone that exercise, I'll ask again: which is worse, "talking about" impeaching a president for a ridiculous reason, or actually doing so?

--GL

I already answered your question, and it should be obvious anyway. I don't think impeaching Clinton was ridiculous. So I can't give you what you want to hear.

[Grizlaw]

I already answered your question, and it should be obvious anyway. I don't think impeaching Clinton was ridiculous. So I can't give you what you want to hear.

Fair enough. I doubt you could ever convince me that lying about marital infidelity (under oath or otherwise) is a "high crime or misdemeanor," but kudos for sticking to your guns.

I'm out for the evening, folks.

--GL

[SonomaCat]

So having established that Longhorn thinks that the Clinton impeachment was justified, how can you then assert that (if it could be proven) impeaching Bush for lying in making his case to go to war is not justified?

Do you consider lying about marital infidelity to be worse than lying about starting a war that kills tens of thousand of people?

It seems hard to support one and mock the other.

I guess once a person argues in favor of the incredibly low standard for impeachment set by the Clinton episode, then they would have to accept that virtually any lie told by a sitting President rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

And that, to me, is not a good precedent to set, because they all lie constantly.

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

You're right; they're not one in the same. Dems have only talked about impeaching Bush for idiotic reasons; Republicans actually did it. Which would you say is worse?

--GL

So lying under oath is linked as better than what the dems are talking about impeaching Bush for? I would hardly call lying under oath one of the most idiotic things imaginable to impeach a president for.

The fact that you avoided my last question tells me that you know that I'm right, but I'll humor you with an answer anyway.

Yes, lying under oath is a serious crime. I of all people don't need a lecture about the integrity of our court system and the importance of witnesses telling the truth in judicial proceedings. That's why perjury is a crime, and why, if the appropriate prosecutor believes he has a strong enough case, he should bring criminal charges against President Clinton for perjury.

Having said that -- the standard for impeaching a President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The meaning of that phrase has been debated (especially since the Lewinsky Crisis, as I like to call it), but it has generally been understood to refer to types of misconduct that constitute abuses of official power. Lying under oath would probably qualify in some circumstances, but when the subject of the lie involves whether or not he got a BJ, it's kind of hard to make the argument with a straight face, IMO.

Now, having undergone that exercise, I'll ask again: which is worse, "talking about" impeaching a president for a ridiculous reason, or actually doing so?

--GL

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are your intentions here to try and belittle longhorn simply because he feels that the reasons for Clinton's impeachment situation weren't ridiculous whereas you feel the exact opposite?

If that's the case, why don't you just say so and stop trying to pull your usual veiled attempts at demonstrating your intellectual superiority?

As for which is worse, would an answer that is contrary to your opinion invite more attempts at trying to ridicule whomever answers?

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

So having established that Longhorn thinks that the Clinton impeachment was justified, how can you then assert that (if it could be proven) impeaching Bush for lying in making his case to go to war is not justified?

Do you consider lying about marital infidelity to be worse than lying about starting a war that kills tens of thousand of people?

It seems hard to support one and mock the other.

I guess once a person argues in favor of the incredibly low standard for impeachment set by the Clinton episode, then they would have to accept that virtually any lie told by a sitting President rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

And that, to me, is not a good precedent to set, because they all lie constantly.

Hard to disagree with that logic. To me, impeachment for a blow job is ridiculous but you need to take into consideration that this country has one amazing knack of practicing moral relativism. If you have enough clout and cash to push an agenda against someone on the opposite side of the aisle, then all's "fair". I'm sure Ken Starr is as wealthy as ever since he left the spotlight.

Of course, in our society, many people see any act of marital infidelity as a black and white issue. The war and it's justification (or lack thereof) isn't so black and white.

If Clinton's situation set the precedent for what constitutes justification for impeachment, then all future presidents (including the current Shrub) don't have a chance.

[Hell's Bells]

He lied under oath about getting a blowjob from an intern as part of a politically motivated civil suit funded by Republicans. Whether he actually got a blowjob wasn't even a central point of the lawsuit ... it was essentially nothing more than a public shaming of a guy who cheated on his wife (who certainly didn't actually care what he did with his willy as long as he was discrete). So do you really think that was a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars?

sorry you are wrong on this point

it was a sexual harassment lawsuit, and ML was going to testify that she...well...knew what clinton's "happy place" looked like. since he basically tried to hush her up about the entire thing, no matter what the modivation, sounds to me like trying to make a witness purjour herself.

It was an absurd thing to impeach someone for. It had absolutely nothing to do with his role as President, and was purely done for political reasons. Perhaps somebody should file a civil suit against Bush for some random thing, and then when he is deposed, ask him on video if he ever did coke. If he says no, would you argue that he should be impeached?

sexual harassment and trying to suborn purjoury (sp) is a bad thing to be impeached for? seriously?

At the time, given how things were going so well in virtually every way, it was good theater, and I have to admit that I enjoyed the show. But in retrospect and given the much more serious times in which we live, the whole episode was pathetic.

[/i]

[Hell's Bells]

lifeloyal, look closley on the timeline of events:

1) clinton is accused of droping his pants and showing mr happy in a crude way to get a hummer from a suboridnate. only mr rasputan was cruder in my mind, all he done was try to strip the ladies of their clothing without even saying hi

2) we hear about ml as a person that can testify about what clintons mr happy looks like

3) she, with the help and incouragement of mr clinton, offers up bad testimony about her affair with clintion

where am i going wrong here?

look i would be the first guy to say who cares if it was just another blow job but we are talking about a witness here

[bozbobcat]

I've been reading this thread and thinking about the Clinton impeachment. I think it was a politically motivated move, but in retrospect, it was not nearly as bad as the sure impeachment and removal from office that Nixon faced. Of course he bailed out. But I do want to point out that Clinton's impeachment was only the second stupidest in US history. Andrew Johnson, the Republican president who replaced Abraham Lincoln in 1865, was impeached in 1868 by removing his secretary of war. The Congress passed a law in 1867 saying that he couldn't remove cabinet members. This was pushed through by radical Republicans of the time, but one radical Republican's vote kept him from being removed from office. The law was later determined to be unconstitutional, ruled by the Supreme Court in 1932.

I guess I just wanted to augment a little historical information. Wikipedia does a better job. It seems much like today's political issues, but then Congress was really the most powerful branch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson

[SonomaCat]

He lied under oath about getting a blowjob from an intern as part of a politically motivated civil suit funded by Republicans. Whether he actually got a blowjob wasn't even a central point of the lawsuit ... it was essentially nothing more than a public shaming of a guy who cheated on his wife (who certainly didn't actually care what he did with his willy as long as he was discrete). So do you really think that was a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars?

sorry you are wrong on this point

it was a sexual harassment lawsuit, and ML was going to testify that she...well...knew what clinton's "happy place" looked like. since he basically tried to hush her up about the entire thing, no matter what the modivation, sounds to me like trying to make a witness purjour herself.

It was an absurd thing to impeach someone for. It had absolutely nothing to do with his role as President, and was purely done for political reasons. Perhaps somebody should file a civil suit against Bush for some random thing, and then when he is deposed, ask him on video if he ever did coke. If he says no, would you argue that he should be impeached?

sexual harassment and trying to suborn purjoury (sp) is a bad thing to be impeached for? seriously?

At the time, given how things were going so well in virtually every way, it was good theater, and I have to admit that I enjoyed the show. But in retrospect and given the much more serious times in which we live, the whole episode was pathetic.

[/i]

Nothing you posted refutes or even contradicts anything I posted. You merely restate what I said with more scary words and rhetorical questions.

So I guess I should say, "Sorry, you are wrong on the point of saying that I was wrong on that point."

And to you I would pose the question ... are you saying Bush should be impeached if it can be proved that he lied about the war? Or how about if he lied about not knowing who leaked the information about Valerie Plame (regardless if you think it was a big deal or not)?

See what point I'm driving at? The Clinton thing set the bar so low that anyone who supports the Clinton impeachment will from here to eternity be forced to be a hypocrite when "their guy" ultimately lies about something (to cover their own ass) and the Democrats want to impeach him.

And that is what started this whole discussed ... a partisan Republican ironically mocking the (far left, but not mainstream) Democrats for wanting to impeach Bush. If the Clinton standard is in effect, I'm sure the Democrats could easily dig something up that would be at least as material of a lie as anything Bill told and thus justifying impeachment hearings ... and I don't think that is a good way for us to run a government.

[Grizlaw]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are your intentions here to try and belittle longhorn simply because he feels that the reasons for Clinton's impeachment situation weren't ridiculous whereas you feel the exact opposite?

If that's the case, why don't you just say so and stop trying to pull your usual veiled attempts at demonstrating your intellectual superiority?

As for which is worse, would an answer that is contrary to your opinion invite more attempts at trying to ridicule whomever answers?

I'll answer your paragrahs in order:

1. No, my intention was actually to try to prove my point. I used a little bit of sarcasm in doing so because I felt like he was avoiding the issue -- the distinction I was trying to draw out is that the Democrats have not really even seriously considered impeaching Bush, whereas the Republicans actually did impeach Clinton. It seemed to me like Longhorn was trying to avoid that (huge) distinction by, essentially, pointing out that perjury is a serious crime, and that Bush has not done anything that warrants impeachment. I don't disagree with either of those points (though I don't think Clinton's actions rose anywhere near the level of an impeachable offense), but regardess, none of this changes the fact that the Dems are nowhere near impeaching Bush, and the Republicans actually did impeach Clinton, which was my main point.

2. It's not the case, and frankly, the idea that you think I care whether a bunch of strangers think I am their intellectual superior is pretty funny.

3. Honestly -- yeah, maybe it would, depending on the circumstances. But when I ridicule people, I usually don't intend for it to be mean-spirited (and I didn't intend that in this case, either). I use sarcasm because sometimes, honestly, it's the best way to make a point. If it bothers you, you can feel free to stop reading my posts, but if you're going to jump down my throat every time I write a post that isn't entirely "sunshine and puppy dog tails," then you'll probably be jumping down my throat from time to time.

And rest assurred, I still won't care.

--GL

[Hell's Bells]

He lied under oath about getting a blowjob from an intern as part of a politically motivated civil suit funded by Republicans. Whether he actually got a blowjob wasn't even a central point of the lawsuit ... it was essentially nothing more than a public shaming of a guy who cheated on his wife (who certainly didn't actually care what he did with his willy as long as he was discrete). So do you really think that was a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars?

sorry you are wrong on this point

it was a sexual harassment lawsuit, and ML was going to testify that she...well...knew what clinton's "happy place" looked like. since he basically tried to hush her up about the entire thing, no matter what the modivation, sounds to me like trying to make a witness purjour herself.

It was an absurd thing to impeach someone for. It had absolutely nothing to do with his role as President, and was purely done for political reasons. Perhaps somebody should file a civil suit against Bush for some random thing, and then when he is deposed, ask him on video if he ever did coke. If he says no, would you argue that he should be impeached?

sexual harassment and trying to suborn purjoury (sp) is a bad thing to be impeached for? seriously?

At the time, given how things were going so well in virtually every way, it was good theater, and I have to admit that I enjoyed the show. But in retrospect and given the much more serious times in which we live, the whole episode was pathetic.

[/i]

Nothing you posted refutes or even contradicts anything I posted. You merely restate what I said with more scary words and rhetorical questions.

So I guess I should say, "Sorry, you are wrong on the point of saying that I was wrong on that point."

And to you I would pose the question ... are you saying Bush should be impeached if it can be proved that he lied about the war? Or how about if he lied about not knowing who leaked the information about Valerie Plame (regardless if you think it was a big deal or not)?

See what point I'm driving at? The Clinton thing set the bar so low that anyone who supports the Clinton impeachment will from here to eternity be forced to be a hypocrite when "their guy" ultimately lies about something (to cover their own ass) and the Democrats want to impeach him.

And that is what started this whole discussed ... a partisan Republican ironically mocking the (far left, but not mainstream) Democrats for wanting to impeach Bush. If the Clinton standard is in effect, I'm sure the Democrats could easily dig something up that would be at least as material of a lie as anything Bill told and thus justifying impeachment hearings ... and I don't think that is a good way for us to run a government.

so i guess it is in all the charges...right?

if bush sexually harassed valarie plame then you would not be angery at him about it, but if clinton outed a [sarcism] cia agent deep undercover [/sarcism] then you would not shut up until bubba faced charges.

what the major media is doing by saying that clinton got impeached because of a blowjob while ignoring the more serious sexual harassment lawsuite that brought on ML in the first place is tantamount to saying "you know, we should not have dropped the bomb on japan during world war two, not to mention be in that war in the first place" while totally ignoring said events like the holocaust, perl harbor, battle for britain.....

[ChiOCat]

Sheesh, I get to listen to boys argue about who has a bigger pee pee all day at home!

Interesting reading, though. It does make you rethink your stance when you read both sides. I usually find I come away a little more sure of my thoughts, but sometimes revise them a bit too.

[Grizlaw]

so i guess it is in all the charges...right?

if bush sexually harassed valarie plame then you would not be angery at him about it, but if clinton outed a [sarcism] cia agent deep undercover [/sarcism] then you would not shut up until bubba faced charges.

I think you're mixing a couple issues here that probably ought not be mixed, Hells. There are a couple different responses that are appropriate here, so I'll give you all of them:

1. First -- you keep saying that Clinton "sexually harassed" Paula Jones, but that's not quite accurate, is it? He was sued for sexual harassment, and the lawsuit was dismissed for lack of evidence on the issue of damages. There was no trial, no jury, and no real finding of wrongdoing (legally speaking, anyway). This is important for a few reasons, but the immediate one is the old saying about the goose and the gander: unless you won't mind if Democrats, a few years from now, keep referring to Scooter Libby as having "obstructed justice" (even if he's acquitted, or his charges are dismissed), then you might want to stop referring to Clinton as having "sexually harassed" someone. If accusations equalled guilt, the Bush administration would already be sunk.

2. Regardless of whether he did or didn't sexually harass anyone, that's not what he was impeached for. Two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice -- those were the charges. Not sexual harassment, not Whitewater, not having an ugly wife. Perjury, perjury, obstruction, period.

3. Finally, I think you have to realize that not thinking that he committed an impeachable offense is not the same as saying that I'm not "angry" about what Clinton did. The fact that he received a BJ in the Oval Office from an intern actually offends me a great deal. It makes me lose a lot of respect for him as a person, and he deserves whatever public shame and other punishments accompany that.

However -- interpreting the Constitution is not an utter free-for-all; we can't just say "well, he did something 'offensive,' so let's twist the Constitution however we need to to nail him." Treason, bribery, and other high crimes or misdemeanors. That's the standard for impeaching a President, and I still stand by my claim that Clinton's actions were nowhere near that bar.

--GL

[Ponycat]

I've been reading this thread and thinking about the Clinton impeachment. I think it was a politically motivated move, but in retrospect, it was not nearly as bad as the sure impeachment and removal from office that Nixon faced. Of course he bailed out. But I do want to point out that Clinton's impeachment was only the second stupidest in US history. Andrew Johnson, the Republican president who replaced Abraham Lincoln in 1865, was impeached in 1868 by removing his secretary of war. The Congress passed a law in 1867 saying that he couldn't remove cabinet members. This was pushed through by radical Republicans of the time, but one radical Republican's vote kept him from being removed from office. The law was later determined to be unconstitutional, ruled by the Supreme Court in 1932.

I guess I just wanted to augment a little historical information. Wikipedia does a better job. It seems much like today's political issues, but then Congress was really the most powerful branch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson

Damn, you beat me to it.

[SonomaCat]

Harking back to what I assume was the original issue in this thread ... attached is an article from Slate. I'm posting it not because it is particularly insightful, but rather because of its context. Many/most Slate articles are written from a contrarian point of view (Such as "Why AIDS is a good thing" or the like) as it tends to make for an interesting headline and gives the writers a chance to challenge convention wisdom, which is always a good thing (except for bad-ness of AIDS -- that was just a dramatic example for shock value).

This article talks about why Bush should swear more (which, although it dovetails nicely into my exact thoughts on the topic from earlier in the thread, are not that interesting). What the article suggests, though, is that a lot of people are upset about Bush saying "shi*."

Is anybody upset about that? Have you heard or read anyone being the least bit concerned about it? I am just wondering if I am missing something, because I hadn't heard anyone giving it a second thought.

http://slate.com/id/2145998/

[ChiOCat]

Harking back to what I assume was the original issue in this thread ... attached is an article from Slate. I'm posting it not because it is particularly insightful, but rather because of its context. Many/most Slate articles are written from a contrarian point of view (Such as "Why AIDS is a good thing" or the like) as it tends to make for an interesting headline and gives the writers a chance to challenge convention wisdom, which is always a good thing (except for bad-ness of AIDS -- that was just a dramatic example for shock value).

This article talks about why Bush should swear more (which, although it dovetails nicely into my exact thoughts on the topic from earlier in the thread, are not that interesting). What the article suggests, though, is that a lot of people are upset about Bush saying "shi*."

Is anybody upset about that? Have you heard or read anyone being the least bit concerned about it? I am just wondering if I am missing something, because I hadn't heard anyone giving it a second thought.

http://slate.com/id/2145998/

I agree with that!

And no, his language did not upset me in the slightest.

[mslacat]

Off Topic:

Can someone actually act or be "equally bipartisan"

It sounds doublely, repeditive.