The drive-by media is at it again!
I keep hearing that the only reason they are against the President is to get back at the Republicans for impeaching the President for giving a BJ in the White House (I know there is more to it than that but I am only giving media impressions). I don't understand why the dems would think that way because aren't they the ones who got Nixon and we supposedly used Clinton to get back at the dems. Now isn't it even and this impeachment stuff should be done. It could be a never ending circle if it is not stopped now. I have always been convinced that if they do get President Bush in 2007 and censure or impeach, then I truly believe that EVERY President from here on out will be at least censured for something. This has got to stop before it is too late.
Clinton was not impeached for BJs in the oval office - he was impeached FOR LYING UNDER OATH. He lost his licence to practice law for 5 years, he signed a document from the Prosecutor in which he admitted he had lied under oath, he received a letter from the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT forbidding him from EVER bringing a case before that court.
But .. notice how differently the dems reacted to Clinton's LYING vs. Nixon's cover-up. Clinton's whole cabinet stood before the public and LIED that they didn't know what was going on. Then Gore stood up and proclaimed Clinton would go down in history as the greatest president.
As for Nixon .. he covered up what his staff did at the Watergate Hotel. If he had brought it all out in the open, and fired all who were involved - I don't believe he would have had to resign. Don't ever let anyone tell you Nixon planned the Watergate - he didn't - but when he found out about it - he chose to cover it up.
At that time there was a full democrat house and senate. They immediately began drawing up articles of impeachment. However, Nixon was more concerned with not dragging America through such a spectacle, than he was in resigning. When the cowardly repubs from the house and senate confronted him - Nixon caved to their demands and resigned. What the media fails to tell people is that the articles of impeachment were voted upon - and they failed. There was no proof Nixon ever knew anything about the break-in to the Watergate Hotel. Nixon would not have been impeached - so he had resigned for no reason except to appease the repubs in congress.
And .. guess who one of the lawyers was for the Nixon impeachment - none other than HILLARY CLINTON.
But .. this time around .. the impeachment of Bush is more about getting back at Bush for WINNING ELECTIONS. The dems still have not gotten over losing 2000. And .. the media has failed to tell the "kooks" that some of the premier left-wing newspapers in the country joined together and one year after the election - according to law - these newspapers (WP, Boston Globe, NYT, etc.) sent teams down to Florida and RE-COUNTED THE BALLOTS. Funny thing about that recount - I believe it showed Bush actually won by over 1500 votes - not the 537 the dems allowed him to have. So .. GORE DID NOT WIN 2000 - and Bush did not steal 2000.
While the dems say that with 64,000 votes (which is an incorrect number) Kerry would have won Ohio and would have had the electoral college votes needed to win, the real number Kerry needed was over 100,000 votes (because that was the margin of win over Kerry by Bush in OH) - which means Kerry needed more than that in order to win Ohio.
And .. Bush had more than FOUR MILLION more popular votes than Kerry. And .. although Gore had 400,000 or so more popular votes than Bush - of course winning FL gave the electoral votes to Bush.
This popular vote thing is what started the "scrap the electoral college" movement. It's still going - even though Bush won both the electoral college and the popular vote in 2004.
Neither election was stolen .. the dems lie to the "kooks" and the "kooks" are so ignorant they believe the junk.
But .. with Bush .. threatening to "impeach" him is falling on deaf ears because hopefully even the cowardly repubs (who are the majority) in both the house and senate would never allow that to happen.
THIS IS WHY THE NEXT ELECTION IS SO CRUCIAL. I WILL HOLD MY NOSE AND VOTE FOR SOME REPUBS I DON'T LIKE (like Arnold for Gov), but my house repub is already a strong repub so all I only have to vote for is pres in 2008. And even then - if I have to vote for McCain to keep Hillary out of the WH - I would do it - but I seriously doubt he can win the nomination.
You're right - this has got to stop - but the dems will keep trying - because when they tried to impeach Nixon, they were at the height of their power and they want to be back there again. And .. I do believe Hillary is guiding this little impeachment stuff because it's HER REVENGE at the repubs for impeaching her husband.