Cali_Democrat (21,212 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307117
How can it be that Bill Clinton was essentially impeached for cheating on his wife....
...but Bush doesn't get impeached when he starts a war that costs trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? And all of it was based on lies.
No impeachment....
Yet GOPers are now clamoring for Obama's impeachment because he's helping millions of Americans get health insurance coverage so that American lives can be SAVED.
There's something really ****ed up about all of this.
Every word of the OP is a lie. DU eats it up.
Star Member Scuba (39,222 posts)
1. This is what happens when neocons are the powers behind both parties.
Star Member Liberal_Stalwart71 (16,382 posts)
116. No. You love seeing BULLSHIT in the first reply. Clinton being a neocon is irrelevant!
He was a successful, two-term Democrat who was popular and the Republicans wanted to destroy him. That's the real answer. The correct answer.
Bill was a neo-con? Really?
pampango (17,075 posts)
67. If republicans would impeach a Democrat whether he were a neocon or not, then "neocons are the powers behind both parties" is not relevant. The key fact is that neocons are the power behind the republican party. That by itself was enough to result in the impeachment of a Democratic president. It does not matter (in terms of impeaching a Democratic president) whether liberals or neocons are the powers in the Democratic party. He or she could be very liberal (take Warren or Sanders, as examples) and a D president would be impeached.
Oh, please...
leftyladyfrommo (7,531 posts)
66. I always thought it was because he lied about lying to his wife or something like that. it got confusing. I was surprised because I never realized it was "High Treason" to lie to your spouse. I kind of like that idea myself.
The smartest people on the interwebs and they have no idea what they are babbling about.
Divernan (11,197 posts)
85. No, he was charged with perjury, i.e., lying under oath in his grand jury testimony.
Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998.
leftyladyfrommo (7,531 posts)
131. But what was he lying about? I don't think I have a very clear view of what "high treason" is. I always thought it was about important stuff. And then the white rabbit goes running by yelling, "I'm late, I'm late"
And you ask if they are just that stupid? The answer is yes. Yes they are.
Chasstev365 (21 posts) <------ troll
122. Don't Blame the Republicans!
Blame Nancy Pelosi: "Impeachment is off the table". The worst political decision in US history! Really? What Bush/Cheney did weren't high crimes? Gerald Ford got it wrong: "the system doesn't work; we are a nation of men and not laws" and Thom Hartman is right: "The Republicans always play chess and the Democrats play checkers."
The Democrats should have relentlessly pursued the truth about the Iraq War and taken all the way to an impeachment trial (s), but they still think that American politics plays by a certain set of "rules. THERE ARE NO RULES ANYMORE! When will they EVER go on the offensive against the Republicans??????
And now- for possibly the DUmbest post of the day (so far)
Liberal_Stalwart71 (16,382 posts)
119. I've always been able to answer this. The American people place double standards on the parties.
Explanation:
They expect Republicans to play politics.
They expect Democrats to govern.
They expect Republicans to be purely conservative.
They expect Democrats to be bipartisan.
The problem with the Democratic Party is that it is heterogeneous, allowing many points of views and people of all ideologies to join it. That is also the greatest strength. When you have to accommodate AND REPRESENT so many different types of people, it is difficult to be firm in one stance.
Someone will always be pissed off because their pet issue has not been addressed. Look around you here on DU. President Obama has angered everyone because each segment of the Democratic Party has some issue they want addressed---adequately addressed like they think it should be. When Obama cannot deliver because his tent is bigger and he has all these other issues to contend with, people get angry.
It's not like that for the Republican Party. They narrow their set of issues down to a small set that can easily be understood as part of a simple plan or agenda (e.g., remember Contract for America). "God, guns, gays" is easy. It's catchy. It's simple. And everyone on that side agrees that it is an agenda that can unite all party members.
That's why.
I also blame Americans in general who still claim that both parties are to blame for the problems we have. The Republicans have worked less than 100 days this calendar year. And yet, the American people will not hold them accountable for it. Why? Because the American people do not expect Republicans to govern.
When Democrats held Congress in 2006, 2008, those were the most productive years, and what was the response? Change didn't happen quickly enough; or, Democrats didn't work hard enough, so let's vote them out and put non-working, non-governing, idiot Republicans in.
There's one more explanation:
Understand that the media is now controlled by corporations, thanks in large part to Bill Clinton.
It has carried water for Republicans now for many years, marginalizing Democrats who DO fight back. When you watch these commentary shows and there are Democrats, what do you see? Kind, polite Democrats who are agreeable and cordial to the Republicans. They are typically DLC or conservative Democrat who are unlikely to challenge the moderator or the Republican(s) on the panel. You'll also see that the Democrat is outnumbered by a right-leaning commentator posing as a moderate (Cokie Roberts) and others.
The corporate media has been a major problem for many, many years now.
Shoonra (38 posts)
33. Big reason Dubya wasn't impeached -- Dick Cheney
The real reason that Dubya wasn't impeached for lying us into a ruinous war, and about twenty other reasons for impeachment, can be summed up in one word - Cheney.
The president can be impeached and convicted but that only puts the next in line into the office. In the Andrew Johnson impeachment even the guy who would have moved up to the Presidency voted For impeachment. In Dubya's case, the vacancy would have been automatically filled by Dick the Prick Cheney.
Besides, the Democrats really didn't want to make impeachment a cliche for dealing with a President whose party is not the majority at the moment.
Enthusiast (30,714 posts)
42. What is really ****ed up about all this is President Obama's failure to prosecute Bush war crimes and treason. It was an open and shut case. But the President chose to look forward.
I think the best case to impeach President Obama is that he was derelict in his duty for looking forward in the face of the most blatant criminality by the executive branch in American history.
greymattermom (1,174 posts)
93. Are we sure he lied? I remember that he asked specifically what was meant legally by "sexual relations", and the answer did not include oral sex. I thought he acted like a lawyer but didn't actually lie. Is this correct? What do you remember?
God help us if the Leftist are not destroyed and they go on to write the history books...
