Clinton bites back?

Whenever something negative comes up about George Bush, my conservative friends (I use the term loosely) love to change the subject, “Well, Bill Clinton did … (blah, blah, blah).” At one and the same time I am both outraged at the Republicans disingenuous indignation over efforts to censure George Bush and amused by the fact that their own arguments for impeaching Clinton may yet come back to haunt them.

After Clinton’s imbroglio in the White House, and the fact that he fibbed about it under oath, the Republicans’ indignation knew no bounds --- “the U.S. is a nation of laws and the President is not above the law” they piously pronounced as they gleefully went out “impeaching” Clinton.

George Bush ignored the law about surveillance of American citizens without warrant, he admitted he did it, basically said he was proud of it and further said he would do it again, all justified by his personal “Get Out Of Jail” card, national security.

That George Bush acted above the law and said he was above the law is a fact. A fact confirmed by the Republican efforts to offer legislation that would make what he did legal after the fact --- if what Bush did wasn’t illegal, then why do you need to change the law?

If Bill Clinton was not above the law, then neither is George Bush. Period. There is no clause I am aware of in the Constitution that says the President needs to obey the law just like everyone else “except” in the name of national security or “except” when he (or she) feels they can ignore it.

For the very same reasons Bill Clinton deserved impeachment, George Bush at least deserves censure. As much as you’d like to Republicans, you can’t have it both ways.