Perjury is a SERIOUS FEDERAL CRIME, PARTICULARLY when the Presidet Of The United States ADMITS IT.<quoted text>
LOL well I agree there... yes he did. I suspect that OJ was guilty as well. I donít think much of the actual failed impeachment as the charges had nothing whatsoever to do with the original investigation anyway, the whole thing was a partisan railroad.
He denied it as long as she denied it, and admitted it after she admitted it ( shrug ). It is what most men would do under the same circumstances.
I call that small potatoes compared to taking this country to war over something that wasnít even true.
Notice that Clinton is as popular now as when he was first elected, didnít tarnish him in any way at all, as the public also agreed that it was a partisan witch hunt, trying to get him on anything they could, and ended up getting him on something totally unrelated to the original investigation.
All I can tell you is be glad Mitt is running against Obama, if he was running against Clinton he would lose in a landslide.
Furthermore, as far as "taking this country to war" is concerned", Congress DID authorize that military action (it wasn't a "war" if we're going to talk about legalisms), and Congress COULD HAVE ended that military action anytime they wanted to simply vy voting not to fund it. why did teh DEMOCRATS not do so when they controlled BOTH the House and the Senate ?
And there WERE weapons of mass destruction found in Saddam's possession, admittedly small amounts, but STILL legally "WMD's". He wasn' allowed to have ANY WMD's according to the U.N., not even a microgram. So the possesion of as much as a single vial containg minute amounts of certain poisons WAS a violation.
It's like claimimg in court that the heroin you possessed was far to tiny to be considered a crime. Possesion of ANY amount over zero is a crime !
And btw, WHAT gives The Obamaniac the legal right to execute American citizens (by so-called "drones". They're actually UAV's, and there IS a difference bwteen a drone and a UAV), without indictment trial, or conviction ? Aren't liberals SUPPOSED TO BE strict protectors of an accused criminal's constitutional rights ?!