You’re the one who is uninformed. Impeachment of the president means that the House of Representatives brought charges against him. If the president gets impeached, he is tried by the Senate and the Senate can either vote to acquit him or remove him from office. In Bill Clinton’s case he was acquitted.

Baklava,

Judge Wright found Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court, not obstruction of justice and perjury.

BTW, Instead of not obstructing justice and committing perjury Bill Clinton’s memory failed him 267 times in one deposition on the Paula Jones case on 1/17/98. Maybe this is what Libby should’ve done huh?

Thank you for showing us all how uninformed you are. Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED. The Senate did not remove him from office. The Senate does not aquit anyone.

For your information, Clinton paid a huge fine and was Disbarred and PERMANTENTLY barred from arguing cases before the US Supreme Court.

Bill Clinton was tried and acquitted of perjury by the United States Senate.

- Wilson had his wife’s name and a reference to her gov. affiliations up on his website for years before this whole leftwing cannard was hatched. As soon as the GJ started asking questions it mysteriously disappeared. As if that wasn’t enough, he dropped tidbits about her CIA employment at numerous Washington cocktail parties as a part of a self-promotion plan to regain his self asserted importance, a tactic hes since revived in several ways, including outright lying concerning details of VP Chaney having any sort of connection with his “assignment” to Niger in the slightest way. The joke around D.C. when this faux outrage started was that the only person that didn’t know about her was her boss. This guy is almost as bad an opportunist and pravaracator as the flipflop king hinself, J.sKerry.

Note to Sistah: When they start the adhomenim name calling you know they’ve run out of viable comments, and feel like contrite, desperate losers. I don’t blame them. The state of the Dem party right now is in abject confusion and dis-array. –

the information in the documents was known to be bogus before the SOTU, and that was the ONLY evidence, ever. And again, it was discounted by the CIA before the SOTU, and Wilson put the matter to bed BEFORE the SOTU.

THAT is the answer, and you didn’t know it. Now that you do…adjust accordingly.

2 q’s
1) When were they determined to be italian forgeries?
2) When did Bush give his state of the union address?

Another key
1) Was there other evidence that Iraq “sought” uranium from Niger?

I’ll give you the answers if you don’t know….

sorry to shout, but c’mon…this is comon knowledge now.

Here’s a primer:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006896.php

…and Sista Toldja found it so offensive that she edited it?

wow. That’s deep.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to address people by names other than the name they are using on this blog. It had nothing to do with being offensive. —ST

Nothing cooked. And can’t cook British intelligence can Bush?

That’s what the 16 words talked about (what British intelligence learned) So how does Bush cook British intelligence Zorro?

And my questions stand. How does Bush cook U.S. intelligence before Bush got into office? (Because the intelligence has been the same and it is the reason why Albright, Gore, Kerry, Clinton said the same things about Iraq that Bush did.)

Let’s go down LOGIC LANE for a moment.

Let’s look at this ONE line of Larry Johnson’s and please tell us all how it can possibly add up. Larry’s line, “Despite the flaws in the report [Senate Intelligence Committee Report] there are key tidbits that help blow the cover off of the White House scheme to cook the intel books.

Zorro, your question is, if the White House had a scheme to “cook” the intel books, then why is is that intel didn’t:
1) predict 9/11
2) have a different story on Iraq before Bush was President and then after – fed same intel to Clinton who said the same things Bush said
3) know where Osama is
4) know where the weapons of mass destruction were that they’ve said were there as well as British, French, German and Russian intelligence.

While, yes, the Bush administration has only found some weapons of mass destruction, they weren’t stockpiles and that isn’t proof that Bush is lying. It is only proof that Bush was repeating the same thing that was fed to him that was fed to Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Albright and they were ALL WRONG.

So. If you and Larry want to talk about Bush cooking the books.. how is it that Bush did so? What is your evidence that Bush cooked the books that allows you to make such allegations? Please point us to something besides an opinion piece that is evidence that Bush cooked the books.

Also, will you be willing to serve jail time for making such slanderous charges? Or can we just chalk it up as the usual leftist attack/accuse pattern?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/30/18754/437

bottom line:
“One thing is clear–it ain’t Joe Wilson that’s doing the lying. “

Wilson is far worse. That liar puts himself before the country. We’ll see how and what Libby lied about in open court. Too bad your Idols, the Clintons, were never tried for ALL their lies to Grand Juries.