why are we not going after our lame duck president with more gusto...he lied in order to involve is in a war causing quite a few more deaths than the infamous Lewinski BJgate.  I would say his actions were treasonous.

No expert here but I am not sure that a strong case of treason could be made against the president.  But assuming a case could be made I think it would be a "bad" case to bring.  Its for the same reason Gerald Ford was right to pardon Nixon -- our country does not need to see a president on trial.  Let him go off into history as one of the worst presidents we've ever had.  Here, Don, my brother from another mother, is an article I suspect you will enjoy!

It also would set a terrible precedent. Every president makes controversial decision and every president makes enemies. If we go after unpopular presidents for the decisions they make in office, then no president is going to be safe and the whole system breaks down.

And there's no way you could make a treason case against President Bush. You may think he was a bad president who made awful decisions (and a lot of people would agree with that!). But he certainly didn't willfully conspire with our enemies to undermine our country, which would be treason.

Every president is going to do things that are strongly disliked by some segments of the population. The good news is that we have a strong system of checks & balances - and every four years, we get to vote on our leadership.

I guess I will just have to hope for a better future, something I hope we can all agree on.

*********

Agreed!

The only problem with impeaching Bush is that it is his enablers that would be doing the impeaching, sort of a political "look what you made us do".  But it's easier to impeach one guy than tar-and-feather upwards of 500.

If only there were a method by which the voters could remove people from office.  We could do it every 2/4/6 years...  Something something t-i-o-n....

Questions about his relationships had no bearing.

Which, as I pointed out, he could have said.  Instead he chose to perjure himself.  Again in a civil case -- not a case brought by Starr.  I agree that there was a TON of bullshit surrounding the scandal -- but he was a sitting president who chose to lie under oath.  Thats a big deal.  We rely on sworn testimony -- if the president does not respect that why should an "ordinary" citizen?  Thats why its a big deal.  Part of being president is being a leader.

We disagree on whether or not a president should be brought to trial.  You would essentially make a president or former president above the law, I think that is beyond frightening.

Only if you take what I wrote to the extreme that you have.  No where did I articulate that there should be a formal bar to the prosecution of a sitting president or for prosecution of an Ex-President.  What I tried to articulate (perhaps ineffectually) is that I do not believe that the "cost" of such a prosecution would worth the result.  In Nixon's case prosecution would have slowed a very necessary healing process.  So I agree that Ford (to his undying credit) did what was nationally necessary, and in so doing committed political suicide.  By no means am I saying that a president should be "above the law." 

For example, should Jimmy Carter shoot someone in the face he should be tried.  The question as it pertains to Nixon or Bush (and there was a case with Nixon I don't believe there is one with Bush) is whether it is the best use of prosecutorial efforts -- what is gained and what is the cost?  An analysis every prosecutor needs to make before bringing a case.  Very often simply because one can prosecute doesn't mean that they should.