I don't even think that it was an impeachable offense. I'm just saying, if the Reps spun denying an extramarital relationship into an impeachable offense of "lying under oath" then how is it idealistically impossible for one to say that the false truths George Bush was talking about for months on end and that an entire war was preempted from is not just as bad of an offense?

No, I don't think one can in anyway spin the fact that he promoted false truths in order to preempt the war into he lied intentionally under oath so the war could happen.
But the fact that Clinton's primary denial was spun into serious offense of the oath of the Presidency is just as wrong.

You may not be old enough to remember this, but Clinton was NOT impeached for getting a blow job - or for leaving his Presidue on Lewinsky's dress.

He was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH.


Now, for the record... I think it was STUPID that they impeached Clinton. It was a huge waste. However, lying under oath is an impeachable offense. What you all claim Bush has done to warrant being impeached is obviously NOT an impeachable offense.

Give it a rest folks.

Bush lied under oath during the state of the union address about reason for waging war.

Clinton lied about a blow job he received.

It isn't hard to understand.

Bush did not lie, any more than the WTC Towers fell by implosion.

You need to get back to smoking your pot.


Telling something that isn't true - when the information you've received says it IS true - is NOT lying, no matter how much you and your Bush-hater friends want to believe it is.

Had it been an impeachable offense, Bush would have been impeached.

That's pretty much what I was saying but uh, thanks for completely misreading my post.