Well, Slick Willie did tings to discredit the presidency also. Never mind his dalliances with Monica and other females.

-Not pursuing Bin Laden in the 1990s

-Using US troops as superheroes to fight in wars where no US interest was involved(Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, etc.)

-Accepting foreign money for his political campaigns, as well as those of fellow Democrats

-and so on and so on...

Yes, I could see reason to put him in prison gear. But, since Slickie was given a passs, the same benefit shall apply to President GW Bush, thanks ever so much.

I may as well respond to this, Mr. Marshall; it seems certain that someone will.

Clinton did, of course, demonstrate to the world that the President of the United States could get himself involved in an extramarital affair and lie about it; however, as you say, never mind that.

On to your first point: I've never seen it demonstrated that the Clinton administration failed to pursue Bin Laden in the 90's, although I've heard it suggested by highly partisan interests. For that matter, however, I've heard of testimony by Richard Clarke, who served under Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, and Clinton (suggesting non-partisanship) that claimed while all lights were blinking red, George W. failed utterly to take action, even to the extent that Clarke quit his job and wrote a book about it. It seems reasonable that he'd hoped to incite public outrage at the President's lax conduct, but many passed it off partisan and untrustworthy. To that, I'd suggest that we cannot, in the same breath, cry out for Homeland Security and call such a book's claims unworthy of thorough investigation- and of that, I've seen none, officially.

I'd like to know who would testify that the Clinton administration was lax in their duties, and what testimony they gave.

I'm not as familiar with the other issues, but I begin to suspect that I may be misled as to your real point. Perhaps, it's the idea that because our government failed to demand a rigorous accounting from President Clinton for his actions, the precedent there set will hold for G. W.'s (whether or not his were much weightier decisions). To whom you address your sarcastic thanks for this state of affairs is unclear.

What can I say? Time will certainly tell on this one- and of course, I hope you're wrong- I'd even argue that you are, for the following reasons:

Clinton only got a 'pass' in as much as he got impeached, rigorously tried (some might say rabidly), and then acquitted, in a process that can, perhaps, be at least be described as arduous (whether or not you'd pity him).

However, Even to claim that he got a 'pass' from Democrats in the House who were simply voting the party line doesn't open up any precedent for a free pass for W., even if he were to be impeached- which he won't. If he went to trial - whether he were impeached or simply brought to court - I frankly can't thinking of anyone with the authority and will to save him - to give him a 'pass.'

Impeached or not, he will, of course, find himself out of office - real soon even. -And then he's vulnerable to prosecution by any distract attorney in the entire country, according to the legal argument Vincent Bugliosi laid out in his book- which touched off this whole conversation in the first place. From there, it's off to court he goes- and who will save him, no one knows.

I've attempted a thorough (and somewhat lengthy) response to your post, which I do, in fact, hope is agreeable- I hope to have provided discourse rather than contention. If you really want a thorough discourse, however- Bulgiosi will certainly provide it. I recommend his book on exactly these grounds, and would be interested in your response.

All I said is, Clinton didn't get jail time. The worst he got for all his stuff was impeachment, and disbarrment.

If thhat's good for Slick Willie, then similar treatment(and no further) is good for Pres. GW Bush also.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Nuf said.

Bugliosi accuses G.W. of the murder of over 4,000 Americans. If impeachment and consequent disbarment is good for Clinton, then a trial at least is good for Bush- so far, so good.

As for jail time- well, murder generally carries a bit stiffer a penalty than disbarment (or jail time, it might be noted), but again- they'll have to consider that and make a decision at the aforementioned trial.