We'll just have to agree to disagree on the younger Bush but it's only in symantics really. In my mind there's ample justification for impeaching someone for horrendous incompetence. My reasoning is that, even though there is the phrase "high crimes and misdeanors", there is simply nothing in place to move the interpretation of that to anything more than a political impression. It really has nothing to do with whether any actual criminal charges could be proven in a court of law.

That said, under that logic you may be under the impression that the Republicans had every right to move for impeachment against Clinton and of course legally they did. Ethically though he was a poor target because their one major charge against him was not that he got sucked off by an intern but that he lied on the stand about it. The problem I have with that concept is that the question he lied to should never have been asked in a just society. It had nothing to do with law but only a moralistic look into one's marriage fidelity. I would've had a whole different attitude about Mr. Clinton (other than just abject disappointment in him squandering what would've been a stellar legacy) had he lied about his involvement in the Whitewater scandal, the true target of the initial investigations.

Art