First, all of your sources are sites that suck on the tailpipe of the Liberal Base...All except Boston.com, which JUSTSOHAPPENED to have an OP-ED piece written by
Ralph Nader...Any objective forum member needs to go no further...:roll:
But for some frustrated reason, I will...
Second, Clinton ADMITTED to the lie WHEN there was factual evidence...That, whether you want to accept it or not, is a plea of "Guilty".
The only question was, "Is it worth it to remove him from office because of his ADMITTED LIE?....and the answer was "No"...
May I also remind you that the Democratic Senators ALL voted for a "No", so I expect that you would feel the Republicans were EQUALLY partisan?...Not so...
The Senate voted on the Articles of Impeachment on February 12, with a two-thirds majority, or 67 Senators, required to convict. On Article I, that charged that the President "...willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" and made "...corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence" in the Paula Jones lawsuit, the President was found not guilty with 45 Senators voting for the President's removal from office and 55 against. Ten Republicans split with their colleagues to vote for acquittal; all 45 Democrats voted to acquit. On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
Notice how the accusation is NOT "lying about head"?...That is a fallacy which is continually brought up to make light of the actual issues, which are ""...
willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury", "...
corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence", and "...
has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"
Unlike Monica, all your doing is blowing smoke...
Now that the truth has shown its ugly light on you, let's get back to GWB...
In order for GWB to be impeached, you would have to have to show that there was a lie that was not derived from opinion, which is not the case...You WANT to believe it..."Wishing so" doesn't make it reality...
Also, You would have to prove that NOT ONLY did the President receive info that was not shown to the full Senate, or at least the Senate Intelligence Committee, but that the info "hidden" was CONTRADICTORY to what was shown...
In order for that to happen, the Senators objecting NOW would have to explain why they DID NOT go directly to the CIA and ask if all information was given...and accurately...The only way for these accusations to be true would be for the Senators to say, "GWB showed us stuff and we were SO STUPID not to question it at the time or "get to the bottom of it" that we, as elected leaders, blindly went with our hearts and not with our heads...For 2 years, we've questioned EVERYTHING he's done as President...education bills, tax cuts, response to 911...
But when the MOST IMPORTANT VOTE of our time as Senators came up, we officially acted like sheep."...
What a defense, huh?...:roll:
One would also have to prove that he knew of concrete evidence that he knew things otherwise, which could never be proven because,
A) As a CIA Intelligence officer once said, "Intelligence is not a science...It's an art form"....which means it's open to interpretation...
B) We elected a certain person to finally decide upon these "interpretations"...Believing the UNELECTED CIA - an organization with NO AUTHORITY in making these decisions - over the President, who, through the Constitution, DOES have the authority to make these decisions(with the consent of Congress), is utterly laughable...
The CIA could show intel to the President and say "We believe there is only a 10% chance that this intelligence is correct."...If the President believes that "10%" is still too much of a chance to take, that's HIS decision..."Because the CIA says otherwise" is not an answer to the accusation of a lie...They only provide the intel...not what to do about it...They probably can make recommendations, but what they say can ONLY be taken into account...not form actual policy...
So you see, your "wish" will not be granted...:2wave: