Bush league

Throughout the over 200-year history of the United States, only two of our fearless leaders have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson and William Clinton.

To be clear, impeachment is only the first step toward removing a government official from office - the second stage is conviction. When a person is arrested for a crime, he must first be charged or indicted, and then convicted.

Pres. Johnson was impeached for breaking the Tenure of Office Act. Congress passed the Act so that Johnson would break it. When Johnson broke the Act by firing one of his cabinet members, the House of Representatives pounced and impeached Johnson by a vote of 126 to 47. However, he was acquitted when the Senate came one vote shy of conviction.

Pres. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Clinton lied to a grand jury about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones. The Senate acquitted Clinton on both counts. There was not a majority of senators who voted for conviction on either count - they need a two-thirds majority to convict.

It is certain that Johnson broke the law, even though the law may have been unethical for Congress to pass. On the other hand, Clinton broke no law - he lied about a relationship that was within the bounds of the law.

In Washington, DC, it's a misdemeanor to have sexual intercourse with someone other than your spouse. While Clinton admitted to having oral sex with Lewinski, it was never proved that they had vaginal sex. Therefore, the law does not apply.

If no law was broken, then in what way was justice obstructed? This must have been why the Senate voted to acquit Clinton.

At the same time, what Clinton did was immoral. No matter how much of a liberal I am, no matter how much I think that the Republicans were out to get Clinton, I know that what he did was wrong.

It is generally understood that the law is present to protect life, liberty and property. Even though our justice system isn't based on morality, we hold our leaders to a higher standard.

If in the public eye Clinton was an immoral leader for his adultery and lying, then there is no question that Pres. George Bush is also an immoral leader. And it has been surprising that the Democratic majority in the House have not tried harder to impeach our "fearless leader."

I can recall a united America after 9/11. I can recall that the forceful actions against the terrorists in Afghanistan drove Bush's approval rating to his career high. According to NBC News and Wall Street Journal polls, for the four months after 9/11, at least 80 per cent of Americans approved of the job Bush was doing.

However, upon the US invasion of Iraq, Bush's approval rating fell about 30 points. This may have been, in part, because of the Bush Administration's stark denial of the United Nation's Iraq weapons inspection, which found none of the alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Bush remained strong on the subject; on Oct. 7, 2002, Bush said, "(Iraq) possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."

Even before that public statement, the British knew of Bush's overwhelming press for American action in Iraq, no matter what the evidence. In the Downing Street Memo, high-ranking British government officials knew of the American plan in July 2002:

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

If this isn't immoral and unethical, I'm not sure what is. If the American people were worried about the immorality of Clinton's personal life, then they sure should be concerned with Bush's decision to discard American lives. The lies that Bush committed border on treason.

There is no question that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are linked, and that there are terrorist cells in Iraq. However, the evidence that Bush used was false, and he didn't care.

In an April 23, 2006 60 Minutes interview, former CIA Chief of Clandestine Operations for Europe Tyler Drumheller said, "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."