Impeachment: Clinton vs. Bush

The I-word has been thrown around lately, mostly by the far-left fever swamps. Let's look at the difference between the actions that led Clinton to be impeached and the actions that have spurred the calls for Bush's impeachment:

Clinton: Committed his indiscretion, then lied to the American people and lied under oath. Pretty straight-forward. If I lied under oath, I'd be charged with a crime too.

Bush: Did something that is most likely within his powers as President, then went before the American people, told them exactly what he did, why he did it, and why it was okay. No lying, no cover-up, he just came out and said, "Thanks for leaking a classified operation, NYT, after I told you not to, but since you did, I'll tell the country about it instead of denying it ever happened or splitting hairs over the definitions."

Now, I know my lefty readers will say, "Yeah, but he didn't tell us for 4 years that he was doing this." And my response is, "Of course, you can't tell the bad guys you are listening to them and expect to get any sort of intelligence that would protect Americans."

Not surprisingly, I don't lose a lot of sleep at night worrying about the NSA monitoring me. I think I would sleep a lot less knowing that the NSA wasn't monitoring people who were talking to terrorists.