Whenever I read anything like this rewriting of history, it makes it hard to take anything else that person says seriously. It tells me that that person is living in some kind of Clinton-spun dreamworld:

As to Bill Clinton not being the focus of right wing hatred, I disagree strongly. For years, I would see bumper stickers around town that said, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Bush." The right wing-funded litigation was going after Bill, not Hillary. Ken Starr persecuted [literally] Bill, not Hillary. And, the Republican Congress impeached and tried the President -- not the First Lady -- for no other reason than he was unfaithful to his wife, and in the face of a 65% approval rating. No, they were after Bill, because they just couldn't bear to have been beaten by a Democrat. Especially a Democrat that they had targeted, on which they had attempted political homicide, and who just wouldn't go away when a lesser man would have quit. Clinton's perserverence [sic], and the continuing efforts by the Right to downplay his two Administrations, simply reinforce my theory that the Republicans will do anything -- anything -- to win.

Emphasis mine. Not only were there several other reasons, but that wasn't even one of them. I know that you'll be shocked to learn that none of the articles of impeachment mentioned his wife, or his fidelity to her. He was impeached for things that are federal crimes. Worse ones, in fact, than the one for which Scooter Libby is currently having a jury deliberate, because they included not just lying under oath, but witness intimidation and bribery, and subornation of perjury from others. And Libby hadn't taken an oath in front of the American people to see that the law of the land was properly executed.

And he can't even keep his false story straight, because in the very next sentence, he says that he was impeached because he'd won an election (funny, how they've never done that with any other Democrat president).

And this guy's supposed to be a lawyer?

This is the kind of fantastic denial about the nature of the Clintons among Democrats that I wrote about the other day.

So why wasn't Clinton Indicted then?

Anonymous Moron, you've asked that question before, and it's been answered several times. Your continual repetition of it is why almost everyone here thinks you a moron.

An impeachment is an indictment.

A J-H, read the Constitution, it explains it.

"Anonymous's" comments is very typical of the liberal mentality in that they believe that it is not necessary to understand something in order to comment on it. Liberals, by and large, tend to be intellectually lazy.

I believe this is a result of the public school system that places higher priority on "self-esteem" than on the importance of actual learning.

It's revealing that a key argument (for this author) against Clinton's impeachment is his 65% approval rating at the time.

And in Clinton's case, unlike Libby's, there really was an underlying crime.

anonymous,

Yes, although impeachment is at least analogous to indictment, Clinton wasn't indicted by the normal process to which we all (including him) are subject. But this was not because he was innocent or could not be found guilty. On the contrary, he admitted misleading the court, and was disbarred for 5 years and had to resign from the bar of the Supreme Court.

In short, it is asinine to think that the "why wasn't he indicted?" rhetorical question is useful to a Clinton-backer's argument. It's like complaining there was no trial, when that's because your man has plead guilty.

Clinton was not indicted because Starr decided it was not good for the country to have a political trial despite Clinton's violation of the law. He referred matter to Congress

Clinton was not indicted because Starr decided it was not good for the country to have a political trial despite Clinton's violation of the law. He refered matter to Congress

I wonder how well the phrase "not good for the country to have a political trial" would have gone over in 1973...

Bill Clinton is the only democratic president with a republican
congress since Truman.

For years, I would see bumper stickers around town that said, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Bush."

This is an example of "hatred?" I hope that writer realizes those bumper stickers took their inspiration from a Watergate-era bumper sticker that said, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for McGovern." Was that Nixon-hatred?

Bill Clinton is the only democratic president with a republican congress since Truman.

A Republican Congress elected in no small part due to Clinton's own actions during 1993 and 1994, lest we forget. And sustained in 1996 and 1998 because of Clinton's actions throughout his presidency.

McGehee:

Remember, if you criticize a Leftist, you're oppressing them.

If you disagree with a Leftist, you're censoring them.

So, if you mount a bumpersticker that disagrees w/ a Leftist, it's hate speech.