Why Liberals Can't Impeach Dubya

All right, enough of this "behind the scenes" crap. People aren't going to stay here if they think that's all I write about.

Anyway, I realized something yesterday. A lot of anti-Bush liberals are saying that he should be impeached because he supposedly lied about the war. After all, they say, Clinton was impeached for lying, so that should be the standard for all future problems, right?

Wrong. You see, Clinton lied under OATH. That's called perjury, and it's illegal. When the president breaks the law while in office, THAT is grounds for impeachment. If a few people THINK that the president lied in his SOTU speech, that's not the same thing.

Now, I personally don't think Bush lied, but even if he had, he couldn't be impeached for it. Why? Because he wasn't under oath. Politicians lie all the time. There would only be a few in office if we impeached them all the time.

However, when someone is under oath, they're required by law to tell the truth, and if they lie then, they've broken the law. Clinton was a criminal, Bush is just not real good at persuasion, I suppose.

I'm glad I could clear that up (as if I was the first person to come up with that).