Clinton wasn't almost impeached, he was completely impeached.. and he wasn't impeached for having an affair in the Oval office. really, do yourself a favour and spend 5 minutes reading up on what impeachment actually is..
No. As you say below, the Senate voted not to convict, the whole charade mere theatrical, histrionic simulation.
We all know that the impeachment proceedings were not
directly based on the frolicing, but on the lying about it, on the rhetoric, not the act.
I think you are the only person who views impeachment as an all-purpose moral-political condemnation of the president.
Your strawman is hilarious. You are the one attempting to demonstrate that impeachment is so grave a process that not even a proven mass-murderer who has committed the worst crimes imaginable should be subject to such horrendous legalistic torture
FYI: What Clinton was impeached for was perjury and obstruction of justice, not frolicking with an intern (even though that is what he lied about). The senate voted not to convict, so there's a lot of people who think that means he wasn't impeached..
Oh please, we
know. That's what made it all a sick joke (and all this happening while he was committing terrorist acts in Sudan).
one thing that makes your concept of the president being impeached for an illegal war difficult is that Congress voted to support the war, so it is kind of difficult for them to turn around and charge the president for war crimes that they voted to approve. secondly, there are no American laws applicable to the type of war crimes that George Bush carried out..
Untrue. Just as Clinton was subjected to impeachment proceedings for lying about his affair, Bush can be similarly subjected for lying about the Iraq invasion (with Congress hysterically declaring that their vote was based on believing the lie to be true etc).
Type of war crime? What, are there legal war crimes? Bush can be impeached for lying about his mass murder, and jailed via the Hague court for engaging in it. You are seriously deluded if you can't see this.
What he could be impeached for is lying to congress about the weapons of mass destruction. That is an impeachable offence, and is at the heart of the misconduct of the Iraq war.
How very clever of you! Impeached for lying, again. The sick joke, again. We
know, Goriot.
Goriot, the "misconduct" of the Iraq war was the war itself, the illegal invasion and the mass murder, still continuing [and the number of US troops there is still
increasing, not decreasing], not the lying about it. So if he had "told the truth," the invasion would have been okay?
[I'm reminded of Tony Blair's psychopathology: "Oh, but I didn't lie: I
genuinely believed Saddam had WMDs. So, even though I was mistaken, I was being totally truthful!"].