Seems to me

Joke or not, JK's right, it is crazy that Republicans impeached over a lie about a blowjob and not lies about war.

That's what I'll be saying for the next year.

Dems will too.

I keep saying though the American people love a good soap opera, so the can really "understand" and get upset about a bj. The war is too huge and not even fathomable to most people (it's not like we've seen a lot of coffins arriving home so there is really no visual reminder) so, up until recently anyway, most folks haven't gotten too upset about the war. (I'm speaking broadly here, I know there are folks who have been upset about it since day one. I'm one of them.)

That's an excellent comeback though - hope you don't mind if I use it too.

The issue is our form of government. If the executive branch knowingly deceived the legislative branch to take us into war to remake the middle east, not because of the WMD they as they told the Congress and the American people - they went outside the powers of the executive branch.

Even if the President thought WMD were possible in Oct 2002, he knew they were very unlikely in March, 2003. To me, the most disgusting thing is that Saddam destroyed the only advanced weaponry he had (the missiles) at the request of the inspectors - who Bush later said were ineffectual and in one comment, not allowed into the country. We attacked a country AS it was disarming. I really think the Democrats should put internal politics aside and concentrate on Bush's decision in MARCH. Why let Bush frame the question by arguing that they all had the same information in October. In March, Bush had no legitimate reason to take us to war, BUT he really did have the support of the majority of the American people. (I don't think the anti-war numbers ever broke 40%)

The President, as CIC has the power on his own to call out the military in the case of an imminent national threat - but they aren't even trying to make this case. However, if the Democrats took over Congress, they would likely in the media make the case that they did it to make the world safer - and the American people would buy it rather than accept the unacceptable - that we were not good guys. That thought, even post Vietnam, is foreign to most Americans.

The difference is that accepting that Clinton did something wrong doesn't involve the American government and its armed forces doing wrong. By proving that we went to war when we shouldn't have, our country is quilty - and this is something that you won't get majority support for.

Years ago, sitting with my extended family, the conversation turned to politics. A conservative NC brother-in-law said that Clinton's impeachment and that the Senate kept him in was the biggest scandal in our lifetime. Another brother-in-law countered with Watergate. My brother and I argued that Iran/Contra was far worse. (I didn't even know the drug allegations). When asked why Iran/Contra didn't create as much outrage, my brother thought it was because it was so against our civics class view of our government that accepting that it happened requires giving up the cherished belief that America is a unique force for good. (Not a common thought on DU, but at least on an unconscious level common in the country. This view is re-inforced for most people looking at their own communities - where many good people help others, ignored is the same was likely true in Germany in 1940, when they had a far more evil government.

The problem is Bush has brought disgrace on the US, Clinton simply disgraced himself.

one of their threads on Kerry's impeachment comments had over a thousand replies. they are sensitive to it because there is truth to it.

so far NONE of them who supported Clinton being impeached over the affair have explained why that was justified while not supporting the same for the things Bush has done.

because of something the right-wing doesn't like. Maybe he's deliberately pushing their buttons. In any case, I'm glad Senator Kerry said what he said, joke or not. It was probably a bit of both. There is a always a grain of truth in humor.

Bsh should be impeached, but the sad fact is that our Republican Congress will never consider it, not matter what evidence might be found. If 2006 goes the way we want it to, that will change. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean there will be an impeachment. That will have to be decided on the merits of the case. But it moves from the realm of improbability to the realm of possibility.