[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
You’d be wise to stop perpetuating the false meme that Clinton was not impeached for a blow-job; at least if you want to be taken seriously around here by anyone other than the wingnuts.
[/QUOTE]
As between you and John Mace, who do you believe is taken more seriously around here?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
And you’d be wise to stop perpetuating the false meme that Clinton was impeached for a blow-job; at least if you want to be taken seriously aroudn here by anyone other than the wingnuts.
[/QUOTE]
You know, there’s not a huge difference between for" a blow-job" and “for lying about a blow-job”. Do you maintain there would have been an “impeachment” with*out *the blow-job?
Pardon my playing Junior Mod. here, but I am supremely pissed about the idea that a question about Mr. Bush is always subverted into Bill Clinton’s taste in oral sex. It’s a sad cry when the collective wisdom of this board cannot distinguish between the need for constitutional government and illicit sex. Granted that for most of the public, talking about blowjobs is more interesting than the contents of the Presidential oath – but I would like to think we’re a cut above that.
The issue is not what Bill Clinton was impeached for (not blowjob, not perjury, but lying about having gotten a blowjob under oath, and that’s batshit insane to try to remove a President for, while allowing refusal to provide the needy aid in the Depression, attempting to arrest veterans for asking for the pay promised them, manipulation of the cotton price to affect an election, attempting to stack the Supreme Court, nationalizing the steel industry, influence peddling by the White House Chief of Staff, sex with Marilyn Monroe, blatant lying about Vietnam, an “enemies list,” willful polarizing of the country, incompetence in protecting our embassies, Iran-Contra, failure to capitalize on the fall of communism, and blatant misrepresentation of the truth about Al Qaeda, WMDs, torture, and who knows what else, to go unpunished. (Note that that catalog of sins is bipartisan and goes back before World War II.)
There may or may not be grounds to impeach George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States, and there may or may not be sufficient grounds to convict and remove him on impeachment. But that has nothing to do with the husband of the Senator from New York who was his predecessor and what may or may not have been his sexual peccadilloes.
Sorry to all staff and Dopers for getting bitchy. But that is one repeated action that is within the board’s rules but that drives me up a wall.
I do not care if William Jefferson Clinton and Osama Bin Laden had a threesome with Mother Teresa one night in Bangkok. It has nothing to do with the presidency of George W. Bush and whether he should be impeached. Please, please, cut it out.
Ok. :smack:
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Cite? I have to believe that if the man was willing to risk so much for it, it was far beyond “mediocre.”
Sorry for the hijack, but seriously – can’t we at least imagine that it was WORTH IT?
[/QUOTE]
If you like, Bricker, you might open up a separate thread to discuss the quality with which Jewish women of a certain age dispense oral sex, and I’ll be glad to explicate my argument for “mediocre,” But I don’t want to risk incurring the Wrath of Polycarp any more than I absolutely need to (even though Im not quite sure who he’s pissed at here, me for cracking wise about the bj in the OP, or John Mace for admonishing me for my allusion to that meme, or just to everyone for discussing it again.) But I think a “Was Monica Lewinsky Highly Skilled at Performing Oral Sex?” thread might be worth a post or two–I feel very strongly that she did not and would be happy to explain my reasoning.
“Mediocre head” … “mediocre head” … um, I don’t understand, sorry.
But anyway, a slow-to-catch-up-with-the-people Congress need not be an impediment - *state * legislatures can start it instead. Keep your eyes on Santa Fe, kiddies.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
…impeaching Bush (and Cheney) is in their best interests?..[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
Impeaching Bush and Cheney at the same time would like a coup attempt by Pelosi. :eek: Unless there’s a reasonable chance at getting 67 senators to vote for removal an impeachment would be a waste of time.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
“Mediocre head” … “mediocre head” … um, I don’t understand, sorry.
[/QUOTE]
She bit it off midway?
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
…My serious answer, John, is that just impeaching him would send a message to the world as to how deeply the US regrets following this stupid turd into this quagmire…
[/QUOTE]
I think this is correct. Also it may be the only way that the US’ reputation in the wider world can be restored.
The Special prosecutor went after Clinton for years wasting incredible amounts of money. I have heard it was a payback for impeaching Nixon. I have also read that it was an attempt to handcuff his presidency by constantly keeping him on the defense. I do not know, but I would like to see how Bush would react to some serious legal problems. There is a vulnerability to signing statements, torture and ignoring the constitution he swore to uphold.
The Special Prosecutor was not formed to go after the Lewinsky case but was just handed it . Clinton should have not denied it and gone on his way. I would love to see what Bush would do when he is cornered. The arrogance of the Imperial presidency could be stripped bare for the world to see.
I don’t think Bush/Cheney should be impeached at all. We have a couple of years to shove things up their ass like they’ve done to us for the past six years; I think they should be made to answer for their hubris while in office and on the record, not after it’s pipe-and-slippers time out at the ranch.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
But anyway, a slow-to-catch-up-with-the-people Congress need not be an impediment - *state * legislatures can start it instead. Keep your eyes on Santa Fe, kiddies.
[/QUOTE]
AWESOME! 
:eek:
::runs for popcorn::
I can’t wait to see *this * show.
Seriously, I would pay the $60 a month for cable TV if this event were aired on a cable-only station.
I soooo hope this guy has the nuts to follow through. Yay. 
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
The Special prosecutor went after Clinton for years wasting incredible amounts of money. I have heard it was a payback for impeaching Nixon.
[/QUOTE]
That would be curious, since Nixon was never impeached.
I’d think the Democrats taking both houses of Congress is signal enough to the rest of the world what the public thinks about Iraq. Impeaching Bush, as fun as it would be, is not going to help one senior citizen, get one soldier out of Iraq, feed or educate one child, or provide one dollar to stem cell research. What do you think is more likely to elect a Democratic president and a stronger Democratic congress in 2008 - a knockdown dragout fight that at best would make Dr. Evil president, or passing this sort of bill - which at worst would make Bush veto it, so we can hold it against the Republicans. Let’s look outside the Beltway for once.
From Daily Kos:New Mexico Legislature to get impeachment bill
It looks like the House may end up voting on it even if none of them want to.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
That would be curious, since Nixon was never impeached.
I’d think the Democrats taking both houses of Congress is signal enough to the rest of the world what the public thinks about Iraq. Impeaching Bush, as fun as it would be, is not going to help one senior citizen, get one soldier out of Iraq, feed or educate one child, or provide one dollar to stem cell research. What do you think is more likely to elect a Democratic president and a stronger Democratic congress in 2008 - a knockdown dragout fight that at best would make Dr. Evil president, or passing this sort of bill - which at worst would make Bush veto it, so we can hold it against the Republicans. Let’s look outside the Beltway for once.
[/QUOTE]
The machinery was in motion and it was going to happen. he quit to avoid it.
From “A Letter to My Grandchildren,” epilogue to The Truth (with jokes), by Al Franken: