As for why, let me just say that i m disappointed that i failed in my efforts to persuade you of the difference i see between Person A citing Person B’s fact claims as “true facts”, sincerely rendered; and A acknowledging that B has conveyed a claim, and may have done so insincerely.

Please note that I have claimed the Republicans were *insincere* what they said, to which i am now adding a claim of “hypocrisy”. As for the substance of the fact claims themselves, I’ll just stipulate to your recounting of them.

If you look at the history of presidential impeachment, all of them were politically motivated including Andrew Johnson’s and Richard Nixon’s. However like Clinton, they all performed illegal acts like many presidents before and since. The difference is that with Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton, Congress chose not to look the other way. Which brings us to the question of why GW Bush did not receive the same politically motivated impeachment process from the democratic Congressional majority. My personal belief is that because Congress handed more power to the executive over the years, they would have had to scrutinize their own actions regarding Bush’s executive powers- something Congress is loathe to do.

I’d address George’s comment, but it seems he’s decided that there can be no more debate on the matter. Very sad.

Larry

To answer your question, of course the impeachment of Clinton was politically motivated as was the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the inevitable impeachment of Richard Nixon. However, this doesn’t change the fact that laws were broken by Clinton, Johnson and Nixon during their terms in office. It just means that in these cases, Congress chose not to look the other way.

It is possible the GW Bush violated laws as well. Like so many things in politics, different people will interpret different degrees of legality and illegality based on their political persuasions. But one thing is for sure- so far Congress has shown willingness to look the other way as to Bush’s alleged crimes and the question we may want to ask is: why? Personal belief is it’s because Congress has slowly given more power to the executive over the years and this practice has bit them on the ass with Bush. To impeach him would be exploring their own culpability, something legislators are loathe to do.

I’d address George’s last comment, but based on the ending of his last comment, he has deemed himself correct with no room for debate.

Larry

While it may be true that alleged crimes by the Bush Administration are far worse than Clinton’s dalliances, that doesn’t change the facts of the Clinton impeachment. Republicans were gunning for him, and he gave them the ammunition they needed to shoot him down. Even Shrub wasn’t that stupid.

Mr. Sakin, I read Bob Letcher’s column and his statement that Clinton was impeached for a blow-job, in the spirit in which it was intended. Sometimes clear expression doesn’t require rehash of the full legal record, but rather simply a statement of opinion in short terms that leave little doubt as to the writer’s leanings in/re. the full legal record. As I recall, the Clinton impeachment process set the stage for the subsequent eight long years of return to policies, many of which have long been debunked, and which were supported through concerted efforts to enforce insistent ignorance.

So far, no impeachment process has been initiated with much success in response to this period of arguably treasonous excess. The list of basics which the Bush team violated goes on and on, and perhaps the public mind boggles at the prospect of addressing all the issues that must be addressed. Therefore!!!!! Therefore !!!!! the whole point of the article (I might retitile it, “What? Repugs dare presume to give civics lessons? Egad!), speaking for myself at least, revolves about the disdain which I find to be more than adequately expressed by reducing the entire Republican complaint of 1998 to “… over a blow-job.”

Italians are still laughing at us, although one might take a look at their ever-changing government and strings of oddball scandals as food for thought. Using an Italian model, if I were in such a position of power, and if I were presented with a “recreational opportunity” unrelated to performance of my (ahem) leadership responsibilities, I might follow through. Afterwards, the matter would be “none of the public’s business.” Corporate culture! So intoxicating! I think I’ll sell that private jet.

I’m still reeling under my misunderstanding. I still lean toward the belief that, considering our impressive availability of source materials and expertise, we have no excuse for such incompetent governance.

Larry