Bill Clinton got a hummer from an intern, and lied about it during a press conference.
George W. Bush used forged evidence known to be false to sway public opinion in favor of a war (in which thousands of lives have been lost) during the State of the Union Address.
Which is more worthy of impeachment?
Hmm?
Posted by danisaacs at July 12, 2003 11:31 AM | TrackBackActually, Bush used information the CIA had already debunked, and told the WH was not accurate. To bypass the problems associated with using a false claim (namely, it's lack of truth), they comprimised on a statement that was technically true ("the British report this"), knowing that the British report was based on the same information they had had been told was not true.
The CIA said, on several occasions dating back to Sept. 2002, that the uranium claims were not accurate. To say this was their intelligence is just not true. The CIA never claimed the Niger link was true, and in fact investigated it and demonstrated that it was highly unlikely for it to be possible. Never mind the blatent forgery of the documents themselves.
Now, what is crediting a source you know to be faulty, if not dishonest?
And Clinton is not AT ALL relevant to this discussion. I'm sure you are just as troubled as I am that so much of the Bush Administration's behavior reminds us of Clinton's. But that does not merit inclusion of Clinton in your responses to criticisms of Bush.
I think the TB is just a box in the Config menu you need to check. I know I went a few months without it before realizing it.
Posted by: Unimpeachably Dan on July 13, 2003 12:17 PM