Clinton was a democrat with a Republican House and Senate. Bush is a republican, with a republican house and senate, which only lost power last year...

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and rightly so. Bush didn't lie about war. He had bad intelligence and it wasn't only he that made this decision, the whole of congress agreed that this was the right thing to do.

But Clinton wasn't impeached. They both had hearings regarding it, and people talked as much about impeaching Bush as they did Clinton.

There are many reasons for this, but a couple of primary ones are: 1) Sex sells. The sordid details of Clinton's private life makes for much more entertaining television than the details of how the Italians bought bogus intelligence, which they passed on the US and UK, who then 'confirmed' the intelligence by checking with each other, etc. 2) Facing up to the crimes of the Bush administration means the American media and populace have to face up to their role as enablers/cheerleaders of this debacle. That's a little more self-examination then most people are comfortable with. There's an excellent article on this topic at Salon.com http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/05/22/impeachment/ . . .

i agree completely and i'm really shocked that he hasn't been.

Of course not. We're far too much more interested in the sexual lives of our presidents than the world its self /sarcasm.

clinton was impeached because he had a republican congress, bush was not impeached because he had a republican congress, and the new dems are pussies

yes, but I believe in the theory that votes were tampered with. I don't think it is up to us to get Bush out of office, I think the majority of people want him out (as well as the rest of the world) - and I live in a conservative state. (Im Independent though)

Let's see, what's the main difference between having oral sex with an aid and starting a massive war...? Having oral sex with an aid doesn't serve as an excuse to give your powerful friends multi-million dollar handouts through "Defense Contracts" and cushy, high paying positions on a "Homeland Security Council". The main "Logical" justification for Clinton's impeachment was because he lied under oath, whereas the Bush administration simply refuses to go under oath and invokes "Executive Privilege" to withhold information completely. A flimsy and ridiculous loophole, but with so many millions of dollars in corporate profits depending on it, people tend to be more inclined towards letting things like that slide. In short, Clinton got impeached because when he had sex with an aid, no one got a multi-million dollar exclusive contract to supply the condoms.

you'd think but this world gets more and more twisted as it goes along

This is a specious question and many of the answers are also specious. We need to look beyond policical stands and see the underlying and quite different situations. Clinton had a relationship with a subordinate and when questioned about it lied to a grand jury. The fundamental question is whether such behavior opens an individual to blackmail. In this case I would submit it does as he lied to cover it up. Bush entered the office and was given information that Iraq had WMD's. Bush went to he U.N. which passed 14 separate resolutions declaring Sadam in violation of international law and warning him of war, which he ignored. Every country in the free world supported the WMD theory and believed the intelligence. Therefore, Bush did NOT lie but acted on faulty intelligence. When Clintion was in the office he said essentually the same things Bush said but failed to act on the intelligence. Having said that the Congress is well within their Constutional prerogative to impeach Bush as it's the Senate that hears the trial and passes final judgement.

First of all, you don't impeach a President for being unpopular. Second of all, Clinton lied under oath which was fairly unintelligent for a lawyer to do. Thirdly, he lied directly to the American people about the incident, basically saying "trust me, not my accusers," but had to later admit he lied after being impeached. Lying is one thing, but dodging after you've been caught and using tax-payer dollars to do it is pretty despicable. However, being dishonest is not enough to impeach or remove a President. You have to have evidence of a High Crime and/or Misdemeanor. The Constitution makes it very difficult to complete this process, which is why only 2 Presidents have ever been impeached. Lastly, accusations against President Bush have never amounted to more than accusations. Most of his policies have been backed by Congress, and also by the court system. Clinton's law license was suspended in some states, and I think at least one state disbarred him for his unethical behavior.

It would be difficult to prove that Bush actually lied. He was wrong, but I think he always believed what he said when he said it. Being wrong, even lethally wrong, is not a reason for impeachment.

It is a lie to say that Bush lied. He did what a President has to do--trust his intelligence service. The fact that they, and the intelligence services of every major country in the world, was wrong shows that he was right to trust the CIA. What Clinton was actually DOING while we were distracted by the scandal was attempting to give tactical control of the Panama Canal to the Communist Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions. We did have a Vice President, Aaron Burr, who was guilty of treason. Seems that we had a President who was, as well. But Slick Willy got away with it.

Staying purely on the facts and not trying at all to be political as I often do, CLinton was impeached for Lying under Oath, which is perjury. PRetty much all politicians lie, and CLinton was in trouble for going on tv and saying, " I did not have sexual relations with that woman." It was his Grand Jury testimony that got him in trouble. If Bush goes before a grand jury and lies, he would face the same situation, but telling the media something untrue is not a criminal offense as is lying under oath. Popularity has nothing to do with it. There are specific requirements that have to be met for impeachment, and Clinton met those requirements, as did Andrew Johnson back in the day.

The whoremonger was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Deservedly so. He was not impeached because he is a whoremonger.

A good place to start in answering this question is to say that CLINTON WAS NOT IMPEACHED.

First of all, I want to emphasize that I am *not* a Republican. I am firmly independent, and am actually currently registered as a Democrat. Thus, if you disagree with my assessment, fine, but please don’t downrate me because you think this response is somehow politically motivated. Thus, here’s your answer: Bill Clinton was impeached for committing perjury before a Federal Grand Jury. If Congress hadn’t impeached him, they would have set a precedent whereby anybody could lie under oath, without fear of repercussion—in other words, the United States legal system would be thrust into complete anarchy. Of course Clinton’s numerous extramarital affairs are wrong, but people knew about those long before he was elected and never did anything about them. He wasn’t impeached for infidelity; he was impeached for *perjury*, which is a *very* serious crime. Contrast this to what “W” has done: while it’s certainly possible that he acted on bad intelligence, there isn’t any evidence to support the charge that he “lied” about it. Even if he did, though—a *highly* dubious claim—lying per se isn’t a crime; *perjury* is. If you or I had lied to a Federal Grand Jury, we’d be in jail, possibly for a very long time. Even if you think GWB is stupid—a charge I also think is severely overblown—there’s no law against stupidity.

I’ve answered this elsewhere, but I’ll repeat it since the question is also here. First of all, I want to emphasize that I am *not* a Republican. I am firmly independent, and am actually currently registered as a Democrat. Thus, if you disagree with my assessment, fine, but please don’t downrate me because you think this response is somehow politically motivated. Thus, here’s your answer: Presidents are not impeached just because they’re unpopular. If that were the case, virtually every President in the history of the United States would have been impeached. Bill Clinton was impeached for committing perjury before a Federal Grand Jury. If Congress hadn’t impeached him, they would have set a precedent whereby anybody could lie under oath, without fear of repercussion—in other words, the United States legal system would be thrust into complete anarchy. Of course Clinton’s numerous extramarital affairs are wrong, but people knew about those long before he was elected and never did anything about them. He wasn’t impeached for infidelity; he was impeached for perjury, which is a *very* serious crime. Contrast this to what “W” has done: while it’s certainly possible that he acted on bad intelligence, there isn’t any evidence to support the charge that he “lied” about it. Even if he did, though—a *highly* dubious claim—lying per se isn’t a crime; *perjury* is. If you or I had lied to a Federal Grand Jury, we’d be in jail, possibly for a very long time. Even if you think GWB is stupid—a charge I also think is severely overblown—there’s no law against stupidity.

To the AB answerers that say that Clinton was NEVER IMPEACHED: Go back to high school and learn US HISTORY. Yes, he was impeached. Just because Bush was unpopular does not mean that he gets impeached. Clinton lied to the court and under oath by perjury.

CLINTON LIED TO FEDERAL OFFICERS AKA OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, COVERUP OF A LAWFUL INVESTIGATION. LAST TIME I CHECKED THE PRESIDENT IS NOT BEING INVESTIGATED BY ANY LEGAL CONTROLLING AUTHORITY.

EXACTLY! you know why? because the war moongers and profiteers are afriad that if Bush is impeached Americans will want to drop out of the war completely. To impeach Bush would definitely confirm we were wrong, we went to war under false pretenses and would have to withdraw and we refuse to lose face like that when there's too much oil money to be made for elitist fascists

WHAT,S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT

The premises stated in the "question" are factually deficient. First, though Clinton was impeached by a Republican congress, it wasn't for "lying about sex." It was for committing perjury (under oath), suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice (a serious crime). Though he was impeached by the House, he wasn't convivted in the Senate. WHen he left office, the (liberal) ABA DISBARRED him for those offenses. Second, even though Bush had a Democrat-controlled House AND Senate during his last two years, the "lying" about which people keep bleating is never reduced to FACTUAL terms -- for example, what actual LIE did he tell?? Was it told under oath? Was it otherwise criminal? Did Bush know this hypothetical "lie" to be untrue at the time it was spoken? If you can overcome the problems with your supposed Bush "lie", please state them here. I'd love to be enlightened. Remember, Saddam Hussein had admitted that he deliberately deceived the world into believing he had stockpiles of WMD, in order to stem any possible threat from Iran.

I'm not saying I agree with Bush's actions (I don't) but it wasn't technically a lie. That's the intel that the CIA had at the time. They believed Saddam had nukes. And the whole sex thing with Clinton was just stupid and should have been left between him and his wife.

life is not fair and double standards will always exist just ask the guy who is a hero for hooking up often and then the gal who is a whore for hooking up a few times.

They had investagators on Clinton BEFORE he ever got elected President and the whole time he was.And spent SOOOO much money.Rediculous!!!So why not investigate the IMPORTANT things?...Seems like a whole lot of Coruption to me!

And Reagan lied to the court, but it was never considered perjury. Our justice system is an embarrassment to me, with popularity and money determining justice. Even mob justice is more rational, although more deadly too.

Because there are way too many fools who think sex is far far more evil than killing people.