I still haven't heard YOU tell me when he has lied...VERY difficult to contest something when someone doesn't give you the particulars, isn't it? Oh, but I screwed up your talking point, didn't I?

I know how desperate you must be to derail this conversation. However, proof of Bush's lies are everywhere you go. I'll provide them one by one. You can dance all you like, and spin them away to the best of your ability. While you do so, ask yourself this: "Would I spin this hard to protect the president if he/she were a Democrat." Then lie to yourself with your answer.

Here you go:

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

So here we have Bush saying that we need to go after Saddam because he was part of a terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11. And this was his statement to Congress. You with me so far?

But a mere 6 months later, he said this:

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

Now, either Saddam was involved or he wasn't. One of these statements is a lie. Which one do you think?

Um...No...what I said was that Clinton was PROVEN to have lied under oath, hence he committed perjury. President Bush has not been PROVEN to have lied under oath and so has not. Can you hear me NOW?

Loud and clear. You're saying that the single reason why Bush has not been impeached is the lack of political will to do it, in comparison to the political will the Republicans had to go after Clinton for the blowjob.

Ah yes, but THAT fell in the Executive privledge arena, as YOU well know.

Anonymouse, pretty much without exception, every example of presidential overreach has been attempted to justify through executive privilege. Whether Bush's actions legitimately fall under this classification has by no means been established, apart from as a GOP talking point.

Keep in mind, Clinton wanted to use executive privilege to keep that blowjob secret too, but you didn't think it was a valid excuse then, did you? This time around, though, all the president has to do is utter the words, and you line up right behind him. Curious, isn't it?

But naw, I'm sure you're not using a double-standard, are you?

I have provided 2 standard by which a president could be impeached and YOU have yet to show either apply to President Bush.

Ah, but I have. And I'm not going to stop hammering you with this point until you do what you do every other time: crawl back under your rock with your tail between your legs. Just because you've decided not to post under an identifiable name anymore doesn't mean you won't feel the humiliation at this eventuality. Just sayin'.