"So if we want to do something to end these abuses of power by people like Clinton, Bush, and others, do we ignore all of them or do we go after the one who is currently in office so that we can clean up the presidency?" - CarolC

By all means "go after the one who is currently in office" to your hearts content, but please, please do not attempt to present the case that every fault in God's creation is the fault of him and his Administration alone.

The identification of Iraq as a country and a regime that posed a threat to the United States of America, its national interests, its allies and to the region as a whole occured during the Presidency of Bill Clinton - It was not something fabricated by George W. Bush or by anyone in his administration. Damn near exactly the same people presented the case against Iraq to Bush in 2001 that presented the case to Clinton in 1998 - Big difference was that 9/11 demonstrated how vulnerable the United States of America was to asymetric attack, while Clinton did little or nothing about the problem, Bush did take action to remove the threat.

In addition to the work undertaken by the Intelligence and Security agencies of the United States of America, Congress also independently evaluated the perceived threat and came to exactly the same conclusion, so how on earth they can impeach a President for acting on the results of their own deliberations on a matter of national security I am rather at a loss to fathom. I can certainly see a reason for impeachment if George W. Bush had ignored the threat, as Clinton more or less did.