Maryland Conservatarian

Another space filler in the Washington Post about a potential impeachment of President Bush.  Near Paul Revere Country, Anti-Bush Cries Get Louder Of course, remembering that it takes a two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict; impeachment talk is right now just an evening news (or morning paper) sound bite. Predictably, today’s article is filled with the usual quotes by ordinary citizens and politicians about the supposed lies of our president in the time leading up to the campaign against Saddam’s army:

“The man's been lying from Jump Street on the war in Iraq," Clemons said. "Bush says there were weapons of mass destruction, but there wasn't.”

“"If the president says 'We made mistakes,' fine, let's move on," said Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.). "But if he lied to get America into a war, I can't imagine anything more impeachable."”

““He picks and chooses his information and can't admit it's erroneous, and he annoys me," said Colleen Kucinski, walking Aleks, 5, and Gregory, 2, home.

Would she support impeachment? Kucinski wags her head "yes" before the question is finished. "Without a doubt. This is far more serious than Clinton and Monica. This is about life and death. We're fighting a war on his say-so and it was all wrong."”

She doesn’t actually accuse the President of lying although I will give Ms. Kucinski the benefit of the doubt and assume her support for impeachment is based on that and not the heretofore unused “annoys Collen Kucinski” clause.  Now, lying to get into a war would be far more serious a charge than “Clinton and Monica”. And we know he lied about Monica so now I’m curious: would President Clinton have lied to the American people about such a “far more serious” matter?

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear," Clinton said. "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors."” Clinton Faces Rocky Path In Iraqi Crisis - February 18, 1998

(For the record, I don’t think he was lying.)

Finally, as part of an otherwise refreshingly reasonable take by him in the Post article, Cass Sunstein offers this curiousity:

“The Clinton impeachment was plainly unconstitutional, and a Bush impeachment would be nearly as bad," said Cass R. Sunstein, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago.”

“Nearly as bad”?? President Clinton lied under oath, which is a crime. And even Professor Sunstein goes on to acknowledge that being wrong is not the same as lying. So how is impeachment for a bona fide crime constitutionally worse than one for a supposed mistake?