Impeach Clinton, Forgive Sanford

[...] Impeach Clinton, Forgive Sanford | The Washington Independent [...]

Lindsey Graham is the godfather to the Sanfords' youngest child… asking him is kind of stupid…

Maybe the legislature should be able to force the executive to “go sit in the corner” or go “take a timeout”… or something… Sanford and Clinton both need(ed) punishment but probably not impeachment

Sadly there were a lot of Democrats in the House that voted to impeach Clinton,
at least as I recall. Then when Bush and Cheney committed all their crimes including the obvious one of Torture, a Federal Capital Crime, They Refused To Impeach, OR Prosecute.

Sanford should be impeached or pushed to resign.

But will our Democrats support justice?

SIGN THE PETITION
to Prosecute Bush's Torturers

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

.

How exactly did you draw that conclusion from all the quotes you listed? It sounds an awful lot to me like Graham, though he may disagree with the actions of both men, didn't think the affairs justified impeachment or resignation. Graham even went so far as to say, as you quoted, that he thinks “lying about a consensual affair when you're blindsided is not a high crime or misdemeanor.” Did he think it was in poor taste? Most likely, but, again, not worthy of impeachment or forced resignation.

You then presented a quote that showed that Graham's problem with Clinton was the latter's undermining of the legal system, not the affair or the subsequent lies. I haven't seen anything yet that would imply that Sanford has undermined the integrity of anything besides himself and his marriage.

The very flow of your article seems to point out the differences Graham sees in the two cases, yet your conclusion states the exact opposite. To be honest, it sounds like you were trying to force a conclusion even though the evidence (that you present) doesn't support it.

While we can applaud Obama's decision to cease activities such as enhanced interrogation techniques, it is unfair to retroactively charge someone with a crime because future laws prohibit such actions. You might not like it, I might not like it, the people who sign your petition might not like it, but it's a necessary protection. Think of it this way: if abortion was outlawed tomorrow, should we go back and punish all the women who had abortions of the years? Absolutely not — it was not illegal at the time. It's the same situation with the EITs. We can't go back and charge them for something that was not illegal at the time it happened. The best we can do is push our legislators to prevent such incidents from occurring in the future.

Either Obama prosecutes the Bush Torturers or he is SOFT ON CRIME!

“retroactively charge someone with a crime because future laws prohibit such actions”
“it was not illegal at the time.”

Bunk! Absurd comment!

Our Federal Anti-Torture Laws have been in effect since Republican President Reagan signed them into law twenty some years ago. SEE the Law http://tinyurl.com/besdd3

These are Well Known Laws.

Voters Paid Bush's Torture Lawyers
for knowledgeable skills and legal advice. If The Lawyers aren't just stupid, They conspired to Torture, A Federal Capital Crime.

Either Obama prosecutes them or he is SOFT ON CRIME!

.

Clinton should be applauded for his efficiency. Heck, he never had to leave the Oval Office. Sanford had to leave the country.

From what I understand, the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques were not classified as torture, hence why the lawyers felt they were legal. I don't know, nor do I pretend to have the answers — all I can do is speak from what my understandings are. I happen to disagree with using those techniques, I just don't like the precedent it would set if they did prosecute.

You said: “I haven't seen anything yet that would imply that Sanford has undermined the integrity of anything besides himself and his marriage.”

Really?

How about AWOL from the job for days?

That definitely undermines *his* integrity, in a way that'll never see him elected again. I'm not convinced that the integrity of anything else was compromised by that action. And my understanding is that he was reachable, just no one knew where he was. He misled his family, employees, and the citizens of South Carolina. That's his integrity on the line. Mr. Weigel provides quotes that show that Sen. Graham had a problem with Clinton because “he manipulated witnesses, he undermined the integrity of the legal system like Richard Nixon undermined the integrity of the political system.” I'm not sure Sanford did anything to warrant a concern for the very foundations of our society. I take that back — maybe “family values”, but it's not like that term means a whole lot anymore anyways.

I think Lindsay's being so publically forgiving of both Ensign, who he said shouldn't even have resigned his leadership position, and of Sanford because, as he put it he “has sins” too. I think he's just waiting for the other shoe to drop on him. Ensign should have resigned from everything. He had an affair with a staff member who received a promotion and a pay raise at the beginning of the affair and both she and her husband, also an Ensign underling, were fired at the end of the affair. There are also reports that the couple's son received money. Both Ensign and Sanford's affairs involved dereliction of duty/public corruption. If Lindsay's not guility of that, most people don't care who he has an affair with.

Republican hipocracy runs wide and deep.They hide behind God because they are afraid to look in the mirror.

While we're talking double-standards… Lets forgive Ensign (R) too :P

Governor Mark Sanford should resign because he abandoned the people of South Carolina,not because of his affair outside of his marriage.As the chief exec of his state it was very inappropriate for him to dissapear with no one knowing how to contact him. That to me is abandoning the people Of South Carolina. Has nothing to do with his affair with this woman.

Sanford's actions were dispicable and he should resign. However, there is one big difference here. Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury, which is why he was impeached. Even after being exposed, he continued to lie. When Sanford was exposed, he “fessed up” and told the truth.

Thank you for putting things in their proper perspective. Clinton should have resigned.

You are the man. Excellent comment.

On judgement day, who will God judge more harshly? Those who admitted their mistakes and repented, or those who, in their arrogance, refused to acknowledge wrongdoing. Since 1973, America has allowed the killing of 40 million unborn children. I believe that God, in his great mercy, forgives sin, but I also believe that he will deal harshly with those who by their actions, enable wrongding to continue.

Thanks for this interesting post,i like it.

Online, you can Coach on sale after taking a handbag that you live in is around. You can, what products they offer, to see and decide if it's worth your time and effort are. Please note that some of the Coach Outlet are subject to the sale of small defects. Others are overstock or returned items. All Coach bags will be sold at a reduced price, which Coach bags of different tastes and preferences. They want Coach purses that is affordable, fashionable and durable. And given the fact that Coach purses are very popular, The output Coach handbag Comment on this video&quot is the best place to find fantastic deals!