How come nobody says "impeach?"

WARNING: This is my political side bubbling over. If you only want fun stuff about my kids or technology, this post ain't for you.

Clinton engaged in an consensual adult act in the west wing and endured the impeachment process.

Bush sics the NSA on us w/o due process, starts a war so he can look tough for his dad and continues to dismiss global warming as a myth. Why aren't we impeaching his ass?

hear hear!

I have wondered about this too.
We, the american people, certainly seem to have our priorities straight, don't we?

The same people that impeached a president for consensual sex are ignoring the manipulation of intelligence and a blatant contempt for the constitution.

What a coincidence.

Why does it seem that DotNet people who are otherwise talented and entertaining people, feel the need to be liberal?

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for having sex with his intern.

Bush is spying on people who would love to pull a bigger and better 9/11, not people who would rather have a president who just feels your pain rather than trying to prevent it.

"Bush is spying on people who would love to pull a bigger and better 9/11, not people who would rather have a president who just feels your pain rather than trying to prevent it."

Except he's not, he's spying on Americans. Now, I'm not an American, but every time you claim to be free, and then accept yet another cut to your freedoms in order "to be free", it sickens me.

Perhaps you ought to brush up on such books Handmaid's Tale, which has a nice theme in it involving giving up freedoms to be free. Do you want to end up there? Hell no.

and...

"Why does it seem that DotNet people who are otherwise talented and entertaining people, feel the need to be liberal?"

Oh, I'm sorry, are you implying that to be liberal discounts from their talent, or ability to entertain? Good gracious.

Because Clinton wasn't impeached for an affair. He was impeached for obstruction of justice, and perjury. Read the charged against him. If I lied under oath about washing my car on monday, people shouldn't say, "He's going to jail because he washed hir car?!?!" No, I would go to jail because I lied under oath about washing my car.

As for what Bush did. Here is his response:

n the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation’s inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

The NSA’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA’s top legal officials, including NSA’s general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I’m the President of the United States.
----
So there you go. Congress already knew about this. The justice department, and the legal officials in the NSA knew about it. Is it legal? I dunno, I'm not a constitutional scholar.

"Oh, I'm sorry, are you implying that to be liberal discounts from their talent, or ability to entertain? Good gracious"

There is nothing wrong with being liberal. My main problem with liberals is that diversity seems to apply only to race, religion, and sexual orientation, not ideas. As an example, scientists that dare question global warming are ignored or shunned, without regard to any imperical evidence they may present. Being that we cannot predict tomorrows weather with any real accuracy, how can we be so sure about global warning?

Regarding dotnet programmers being liberal I was refering to the fact that anytime a dotnet programmer makes a political comment, be it on talk shows, blogs or magazines articles it seems more often than not to be a liberal viewpoint. I guess I wonder why programmers who are liberal feel the need to state political beliefs during tech discussions.

"Regarding dotnet programmers being liberal I was refering to the fact that anytime a dotnet programmer makes a political comment, be it on talk shows, blogs or magazines articles it seems more often than not to be a liberal viewpoint. I guess I wonder why programmers who are liberal feel the need to state political beliefs during tech discussions."

Apparently this liberal viewpoint comes with your desk up at Microsoft.

It's funny. There's another MS blogger that has the opposite political standing and I had to remove him from my blog list.

Now I have to move your blog to the top of the list.

Most Americans, including my wife, think George is a "good man" and he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Obviously I think those that feel this way are nuts so Chris....way to go.

Impeach his ass!

Good for you Chris. Doesn't really matter what kind of cool software you write if you are living in a police state.

There is no justification for the President's domesetic spying order, given the vast FISA powers already available to the President. He has admitted committing a crime (actually 30 times if you count the renewals), your conclusion is correct. It's time for an impeachment.

For more details on this http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007800.php#more
in the Washington Monthly. This is no longer a political issues. Its a full blown constitutional crisis.

I'm saying it and so are millions of others. IMPEACH. IMPEACH. IMPEACH.

BTW dotNET rocks.

Simple answer: how is President Chaney and improvement?

I love hearing the angry left rant about impeachment.

Of course, they're really only energizing the republican base and not doing anything with their own. If the democrats (and the angry left who seem to monopolize the party these days) would take their heads out of their asses, they'd realize that they should wage a political war where Bush is especially weak, domestic spending and policy. Then they could take some of his base away.

Unfortunately, I have no patience for French-style, limp dick diplomacy, where we surrender south korea to the north, taiwan to chinese tyrants and the middle east (and Israel) to the Mullahs of Iran (they could restore Saddam to power while they're at it). No thank you.

So these type of comments make Bush and the Republicans stronger at the expense of responsible domestic policy. Nice going! The only democrat president since 1970 to have any real success was the one who cut spending and the size of govermnment growth (oh yea, he bombed Iraq too). If you guys keep this up, the Republicans will only strengthen their advantage.

Please be sane. You're only hurting our country with your zealotry.

I should add that I bought your book. I obviously don't think you're a dumbass. Just a bit misguided...

Still, regardless of whether you're left or right. The facts are the facts. The law is the law. Doesn't matter if certain members of Congress knew about it.

Bush admitted to committing a crime. It is clearly a crime. n 1972, the justices unanimously rejected President Nixon's contention that he had the power to order wiretapping without a warrant to protect national security. It didn't fly then, it doesn't fly now.

Just as Clinton was impeached, why shouldn't Bush be impeached?

The only conceivable reason I can think of is that you have to make sure Cheney goes down with him...Oh, and you forgot to mention the positively obscene enthusiasm for torture displayed by the pair of them.

Bob said: "I guess I wonder why programmers who are liberal feel the need to state political beliefs during tech discussions."

This ain't a technical discussion, Bob. This is my personal, private web site.

Matt said: "Apparently this liberal viewpoint comes with your desk up at Microsoft."

Nope, I've been a social liberal for a lot longer than my short tenure at MS. I'm also fiscally conservative, if you'd like to add that to your assessment, e.g. I think we should pay off our existing debts before we run up new ones.

Martin said: "Please be sane. You're only hurting our country with your zealotry."

To which I will (pseudo) quote Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Or, more succinctly: bullshit. The founding fathers protected the freedom of expression for very important reasons and I don't feel any need to muzzle myself because somebody might disagree.

Tim said: "[Clinton] was impeached for obstruction of justice, and perjury."

Obstruction of what justice exactly, Tim? Was there justice to be meted out because of his indiscretion in the oval office? What law did he break, exactly?

Sorry to pollute your site, but the topic you have brought up is so important, I could not help but point out this concise summary of the underlying problem.

http://cryptome.org/small-call.htm

To say that people are concerned about this is a vast understatement.

Count me among those who liked the USA better under Clinton. Just think of the budgetary deficit, cuts in social security - and of course the War for Oil and the Wielding of Mass Deception. Who cares with whom the president commits adult acts?

Now as far as I know, a president has diplomatic impunity for as long as his term lasts. There is the impeachment procedure for those cases where a president does things that just can't be tolerated. Apparently, alleged obstruction of justice about alleged sexual harrassment is much worse than starting a war on false grounds. Say no more.

Impeachment is a political process: Bush is safe until something much more black & white than this comes along. And by B&W here I don't mean "he broke the law" -- he will have to have done it in such an outragous way... Infact, if he committed the same infractions that Clinton did, he would get off free (indeed, he would never be put under oath to perjer himself -- excuse my spelling). But that is fine with me. Until about three days ago I thought the only thing that did more damage to the US presidency was Nixon. Actually, I still think Nixon did more damange than Bush has, though now Bush is roaring into second place.

The thing we most need in this country is more transparency. I want to know more about what is going on in the gov't. Less "oh, we were doing x in the prisons", or "meetings to decide what laws to write for the energy future of the US? no, they never happened, and if they did you don't get to know about it". It won't solve everything, but it has to be better than what we have now.

someone said: "Why does it seem that DotNet people who are otherwise talented and entertaining people, feel the need to be liberal?"

perhaps because most coders are quite smart, and not (in my experience) the kind of people who'll readily swallow "intelligent design", "you're either with us our against us", or any of the other theocratic fascist hogwash spouted by that ridiculous monkey and his band of genocidal organ-grinders...

I love this. The Neo-Cons always come to the table with a bunch of mud-slinging. Don't they realize that they are nothing short of a South Park episode?

Sorry guys, but you're putting emotion ahead of facts.

Fact: Clinton lied under oath.
Fact: There is a penalty for lying under oath.

Fact: Bush authorized NSA monitoring.
Fact: Bush's legality of the monitoring is supported by constitutional lawyers and leaders of Congress (Democrats included.)

Emotion: I think it was stupid of Congress to impeach Clinton for that particular lie.
Emotion: I think its despicable that American citizens have to be monitored for terrorist activities.


Don't let emotions cloud the facts folks. Idealism is all well and good, but letting your emotions dictate things only leads to extremism.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about having a consensual affair. Clinton was impeached for having a consensual affair. (sarcasm) Boy, there's a huge difference there. (/sarcasm)

"When Clinton lied, no one died."

Chris, I like that you do add the political touch every once in awhile and being an ex-bush supporter - yes I voted for him, yes I still think he was the best alternative - the lesser of two idiots I guess, I now believe he is killing this country. I served my time in the Air Force during the Father Bush war and I now believe that W is doing just as you say - finishing what daddy should have. I do have one comment on something you said:

"To which I will (pseudo) quote Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Does this also apply to W not sitting back on the 9/11 disaster? If W gets the nod here, can you say that the democrats provided a candidate that would have taken action after 9/11? That's why I voted for W.

W did the right think going after Osama Bin Laden, but going into Iraq never made sense to me. It was nearly criminal negligence that W didn't seize the moment to start a JFK-moon-landing-like program for alternative energy sources so that we could leave the middle east alone to solve their problems, removing us as an unwanted presence in their region.

Because global warming is still only a theory, and we are at war with terrorists.

We are in the middle of World War 3. If people do not understand this then it will probably unfortuanately take another 9-11 or two before they wake up.

Lying under oath destroys the judicial system, and tramples on people's rights.Clinton abused his power period. The fact that it was about sex is irrelevant.

The Bush administration shares in the blame but is not soley responsible for our current dependence on foreign oil. Clinton and his environmental hero buddy Gore did NADA on this subject or global warming.

"Because global warming is still only a theory"

So is gravity.. so, I guess we can take the wings off of airplanes.

How did I know that this post would be full of heated comments...?

Chris, it is a scary belief of mine that way too many American people have thrown out their own thought and reflection on what is said by the leaders we as a nation have elected. Collectively our nation holds much more enlightenment and intelligence than our actions suggest.

I can only focus my energy on promoting free speech and thought in the hopes that it will again catch on in America.

-- Robbie

Woohoo this is a fun one - thanks Chris! The most troubling thing about this thread is the tone from the left stating that lying under oath in the court of law is not that big of a deal. "Lies don't hurt people" is a horrible philosophy. If it wasn't for all of the lying, we wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. Demand honesty and integrity from our government regardless of the issue. I love Clinton and would vote him back in a hearbeat if I could. But our judicial system should never tollerate dishonesty, even though it happens so often. It's disgusting that it's virtually expected, and accepted, that people will lie to protect themselves.

Actually gravity is a law (hence the term the "law" of gravity not the theory of gravity)

I don't think there's an impeachable offense here. If anyone deserves a bonk over the head, it's congress for approving a bill which authorizes this behavior.

I'm more disturbed that the political party that is supposed to be most opposed to expansive government, seems so willing to give more power to the federal government. Whatever happened to the "small" government party the Republicans were supposed to be?

But see Congress did not approve a bill that authorizes this. That's exactly the problem.

The 1978 FISA statute permits domestic spying through the FISA court process. You start spying and its all good as long as go to the FISA court 72 hours after you started for permission. Since the 1980 implmentation FISA has blocked exactly zero domestic spying requests.

Yet this was somehow not enough for the Bush administration which took it upon themselves to create an unlimited domestic spying authority based on executive order. FISA was created precisely to prevent this sort of behavior because of the fall-out from the Church commission hearings and Nixon's resignation.

As Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated earlier.
"My interpretation of the law would be yes, that he did not have the legal authority to do this under the Afghanistan war resolution or under the general powers as commander-in-chief. The Congress in 1978 — and there’s been no effort to modify it in any significant way since that time — understood that circumstances might change, but it did not provide for any circumstance in which the president alone, without consulting any other legal authority, judicial authority, could waive the rights of U.S. citizens to be free from having their phones wiretapped."

"This ain't a technical discussion, Bob. This is my personal, private web site."

No argument there Chris, I was just making a general observation.

"W did the right think going after Osama Bin Laden, but going into Iraq never made sense to me....we could leave the middle east alone to solve their problems, removing us as an unwanted presence in their region."

To make a long story short, I believe W. is going to try something different than the "realist" policy that said that stability under brutal dictators was preferable (for us, not the people of the middle east) to free people. We "got along" with the dictators, but the people hated us. W. is now trying to bring democracy to the middle east. Irag's recent election shows that the people do want that. You can disagree with how he is doing it or what right he has to do it, but he is doing what he believes will help prevent another 9/11. Because you do not agree with him, that does not make it evil or corrupt.

Also if you read up about the Barbary pirates attacks against this country during the Adams and Jefferson years, you will find alot of the same things Bin Laden said and this was before we were "over there".

Sounds like a slam dunk. If you contact either Barbara Streisand http://www.barbrastreisand.com/ or Jane Fonda they will be more than happy to assist you in drafting the impeachment papers.

Brian -

"Because global warming is still only a theory"

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I'm afraid there's no easy way around it.

What the word "theory" means to a scientist is *very* different than what it means to a common layperson such as yourself.

In science, a theory is a body of knowledge and evidence that is one step away from being fact - while the argument is strong for a theory, it must remain a theory until *proof* comes along.

When we say "theory" in conversation, we're referring to something very different - basically a hypothesis standing on weak legs. Quite different, I'm sure you'll agree, from the scientific use of the word.

And, in this case, it would be a very happy making event if you were right - if global warming *were* "just a theory" in the way you mean it, I might just go ahead and have kids.

In this case, it would be in everybody's best interest if it remained a theory - either in your common use of the word, or in the scientific sense, because we *really* don't want the proof that would make it a fact.

Unfortunately, if dead polar bears could speak, I think they'd offer some convincing evidence that proof is on its way:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938132,00.html

"and we are at war with terrorists."

And this has nothing to do with Iraq.

I still question Bush's motives for going into Iraq. To say he wanted to stop a brutal dictator is a cop-out. That wasn't the original reason he gave the American people. He told us that he there were Al Qaida ties and that they were trying to acquire plutonium. He also told us they were building WMDs. All proven false.

If he's so concerned about brutal dictators, why did we not invade North Korea a long time ago, an arguably even more repressive and brutal regime? Hmmm... what is the difference between North Korea and Iraq? A grudge? Oil? ???

Proud republican...

I don't agree with our presidents every policy as I did not with president Clinton...but I still respect the main and respect the office that he holds.

We voted him in...America. Let's figure out how to get through this devisive mess and stop bickering about 3rd form references.

I mean really do we honestly think the president of the united states would will fully mislead and misrepresent the facts for his own purpose?

Oh wait that was Bill Clinton...LOL
((Sorry party jab ))

I'm middle of the road and I used to be a practicing democrat until I stopped and looked at my sources for party information. The media my friends and magazines were my primary infusion.

hmmmmm yeah get the facts. Read all you can then read what you don’t want to hear.

I respect honest debate...but blatant demagoguery is just wrong.

Just my opion

I read this blog because you are an MS insider and to gain insight into technical goings on at MS. I do not read it because I think you are pretty. Or because I think you tell good stories. Or because you smell good or have exceptional writing talent (for example your WPF book made an exiting subject boring). So you should really consider that the popularity of this site comes mostly from 2 facts - you work at MS and you carry tech content regularly. I don't care what movies you like. I don't care about your politics. I don't care what you had for lunch yesterday. It's your site, you can write what you want on it. But I think you have to decide if you want this to be your own personal "dear diary" which is a boring, self absorbed sissy-nerd thing to do where you post content around your personal thoughts and feelings, or if you want this to be a useful outlet for tech content. Sounds like you've made your choice, so have fun with all the other sissy-nerds who like your 6th grade school-girl hello-kitty diary format and content. Can't wait to here what you thought of the new Brittany record.

"It's your site, you can write what you want on it."

Yup, you made the main point: it IS his site - so rather than taking the extra effort to insult everyone, just shut up. Please concentrate on fixing your own problems, like, the fact you're alone again this Saturday evening.

Lots of good arguments here and I have absolutely no time for Bush but the main point is that impeachment, as it stands, is a political process. It has very little to do with the judicial process. It is there as way for Congress to remove a sitting president if they disagree with him strongly enough. This is clearly not going to happen over any of the issues that you detail. None of them would make the Republicans in congress want to get rid of the president. It is then up to the American people to decide whether this is justified when the individual members are up for re-election. On the other hand, the Republican's clearly believe that having sex in the white house was as good an excuse as they were going to get to try and get rid of Clinton.

time to drop this feed. no useful information here.

As people have already stated, Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a hummer from an intern, but for lying about it under oath. The legitimacy of the process in which he lied had already been determined, so the content of the suit was irrelevant.

As for whether Bush should be impeached, the problem is that it's not yet clear as to whether he actually broke the law. I've heard two justifications for the wiretapping. One of them, that as Commander-in-Chief the president has wide powers to protect Americans from attack, is quite weak. The Supreme Court has shut down similar arguments from previous presidents, including Nixon and Truman (I believe).

The second justification is that Congress authorized him to perform the wiretaps. Well, not the wiretaps per se, but to take any measures necessary to protect America from acts of international terrroism. This was part of the authorization for war that Congress passed a few years ago. It could be argued (and probably will be) that this is sufficient to project Bush from legal challenges.

So, while it was pretty clear that Clinton lied under oath (thus breaking the law), it's not yet clear that Bush has broken the law.

I'm sure there will be more to come, however. :)

Chris Sells Said: "Tim said: "[Clinton] was impeached for obstruction of justice, and perjury."

Obstruction of what justice exactly, Tim? Was there justice to be meted out because of his indiscretion in the oval office? What law did he break, exactly?"

Chris, didn't you read the papers around that time? :) I'm not trying to sound flippant, but it really sounds like you dont recall/know what the whole thing was about. There was a suit brought against Clinton by one Paula Jones excusing him of sexual harassment. As part of the questioning, he was asked about Monica L. etc. He lied about relations with her. This was perjury.

Wikipedia says "Obstruction of justice, in a common law state, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials." Now, because Clinton lied in order to cover up evidence in the Paula Jones case, this is an interfering with a prosecutor doing his job. I believe concealing evidence always causes obstruction of justice charges.

These charges also led to Clinton being disbarred by the Supreme Court.

The key issue here that bugs me regarding the current political situation (and perhaps both parties are guilty of this - but it sure seems to be much more of an issue on the right:)

The actions in question no longer seem to be an issue just the actor.

Do we honestly believe if Bush was caught lying under oath about something in his personal life that had nothing to do with the conduct of his administration - would the same Republican Congressmen and Senators support impeachign him?

If Clinton had bypassed the FISA court to tap the communications regarding the wars in Kosovo or Somalia would the same Republicans be defending the rights of a wartime president?

This IS a big deal (whether impeachable or not) and there are a LOT of Republicans who are concerned about this. Three Republican Senators (Spector, Snowe, and Hegel) are calling for hearings.

It's sad the number of people who reduct EVERYTHING to politics. Personally I feel that the Bush Administration (and Karl Rove) in particular are to blame for this. The nation was SO united after 9/11. But Bush/Cheney/Rove decided to use this event for their advantage and to try to divide the nation...

Why do people think it is "liberal" or "left wing" to expect the president of the United States to obey the law?

I can't stop laughing about the poster or posters who claim they're unsubbing because of your political views (which, having read te spout for a long time, are few and far between).

I think I take solace in the fact that my political views tend to look more like cross-cutting aspects than talking points.

To the folks who view one part as demonstrably superior to the other: I think we all do ourselves a disservice when we spend more time asserting how our party is right than honestly contemplating where it might be wrong.

There ain't no prince hiding behind either of these frogs, just shades of gray despite those who want to see in binary.

Sometimes it even seems like the Libertarians might be the most sane among us these days, too bad they can't find a good third-party candidate instead of the usual local kooks.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Ben Franklin

In any event, rock on Chris, fly your flag whatever color.

Well done Chris - it takes courage to publicise your politics.

You might want to add 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' to your Xmas reading list.

One tip - start a political blog - it's difficult to mix work and truth.

I have a few links for those of you who insist on political ideology as your sole reason for arguing this issue. This is a responsibility of the President, whether Republican or Democrat. It has been done by both Republicans and Democrats. Since we already have a VERY obvious Republican example, here are a few Democrat examples.

Clinton Warrantless searches
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm
http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

Carter Warrentless searches
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Carter should do a bit more fact checking before buying into the Republican Talking Points:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

Neither Clinton nor Carter authorized warrantless spying.

It's a lot better to base your opinions on facts, rather than say ... lies. If you're getting your news from people like Limbaugh and Drudge, you should really leave discussion and politics to the adults.

And let's say Clinton did do the EXACT same thing Bush did. Does that somehow set a legal precedent that will justify every standing president? Of course not. It's just the common GOP "but Clinton was bad!" thumping that has been going on for years now.

He's not in office. Get freakin' over it. The legality of Bush's actions are only supportable by his own legal staff. There was no proper Congressional oversight and several legal experts have questioned both constitutional nature of his position.

Heck, some of those even vote Republicans.

Fact: Bush willfully broke the law with the assumption he had the authority to do so. If Congress determines he lacked that authority, which they are likely to do, he'll have to cease and possibly face the music for those actions.

Fact: Bush is quickly eroding your civil liberties as well as international law. He has sidestepped Geneva. He's authorized what would normally be considered torture in other countries. He or members of his administration have incarcerated American citizens without due process for years. He has personally authorized domestic spying without judicial oversight.

I think maybe it's the conservatives of this country who should stop putting emotion before reason, before it's too late.

Good lord look what you've done...

It seems that a lot of people replying to this post are what we in the military called "Barracks Lawyers." Everyone has an opinion, yet in this case very, very few people know what they are talking about. Just my two cents.

For those not in the know:

Barracks Lawyer: a completely unqualified soldier (i.e. not a lawyer, no law degree) giving legal advise to those stupid enough to listen to him/her.


My predictions:
1. Bush will not be impeached.
2. Bush will be found to have not broken the law.
3. The top secret NSA program will continue (successfully).
4. Some people will still think they are so important that the government must obviously want to know what they are up to.

Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and lying under oath. As part of his plea bargain, the former Arkansas Attorney General surrendered his law license and was disbarred from practicing law for 4 years.

George Bush has conducted "warrantless searches" on individuals suspected of foreign espionage and terrorism. Carter, Reagan, and Clinton have also used "warrantless searches" during their administrations. Bill Clinton used a warrantless search to capture Aldrich Ames.

Grow up, cry-baby liberal.

Pretty sure you're the one that needs to grow up. Typically conservative name caller. I'm just surprised you didn't manage to work the ACLU, "the war on christmas" or Monika Lewinsky into your post. You need to try harder next time.

As was said many times in the replies bove, Clinton was NOT impeached for getting a BJ. He was impeached for lying about it (among other things).

"Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on four charges: perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice arising from the Lewinsky testimony before a federal grand jury and a federal judge hearing the Jones case."

So if you want to be even handed and paint everyone with a broad brush, then you must say...
Bill Clinton is a convicted liar.
GW Bush *might* be a liar.

In 1788 Alexander Hamilton warned that the decision to impeach would be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. 2/3 of the senate is required to impeach a president; do you truly think the republican controlled senate is going to allow their two term service president to be thrown out this way even if he broke the law?

Now the charge must be initiated by the house, do you belief that the senators and representatives that were involved in the more than a dozen meetings when this was discussed are suddenly going to commit career suicide by allowing hearings to scrutinize why they failed to perform their duties and stop the president from doing something they believed was wrong?

On the positive side, this is why representatives are elected every 2 years. If we as a country would like to impeach the president all we have to do is vote for representatives that hold the same belief. After all we are a Republic, this means that we elect people to make decisions for us, this includes not only Bush, but also the congress that failed to do their job by not blocking something they now belief was wrong, and also not bring impeachment proceedings (providing they are warranted)

Although ebuzzmiller went bad at the end of his post with name calling, he does have a valid point. Warrantless searches are not something that only Bush has done.

I call my congressmen to express my views, I voted for Bush the first time, but didn't make the same mistake the second time. What can we do to get rid of this person that is our president. I was in the first Gulf War and feel that this is a mistake. We did not invade Iraq and try to control it because we knew is was going to be a big mess and we had 500,000 over there then not the small number of a 140,000

I would wager that every single president failed to tell the truth at some point. The question of impeachment seems to come up right around the time of congressional election campaigns...very interesting. Could it be that impeachment could be used as a political tool instead of as a legal check on executive power?

RE:Global warming: Since when is skepticism a punishable offense?

RE:War on Iraq: How could you possibly know GWs motives? Impure Motives + Legal Action != punishable offense.

RE:Taping intl phone calls: Nobody yet knows the truth about this. You're jumping to conclusions.

IMHO.

Anyway, no single person knows the truth about all these things. Anybody who claims to has an agenda. Period.

I'm still amazed that he (Bush) got voted back in.

Who knows, in 100 years time Bush's invasion of Iraq may turn out to be the masterplay of the century, but right now, it all seems as dodgy as an $11 note.

Many comments refer to Clinton's impeachment. I'm pretty sure he wasn't impeached.