The other night on MSNBC and the CBS News, a video tapefrom FEBRUARY 2001 was shown of Colon (sic) Powell stating UN sanctions against Iraq worked and Iraq had no WMD's.

So far, the Shrub adminstration has lied about the aluminum tubes, Iraq ties to al-queda, Iraq ties to 9/11, that two mobile labs were mobile labs, Uranium from Nigeria (when this was dispelled BEFORE Shrub's State of the Union speech) and Iraq's nuclear capabilities.

Now we have the CIA asking the Justice Dept to investigate who in the White House leaked the name of one of their agents to the press. Oddly, this agent is married to the man who reported back to the White House that the uranium/Nigeria claims were false.

And to top it off, it has now become known that Cheney has not completely divested himself from Haliburton.

One last item, back before the Iraq war, advisors in the White House, the name escapes me, publically stated you don't bring products out during the end of the year. The context analogy was that the need to build approval of the Iraq invasion started early in the year and with the help of building a perception of Iraq's link to 9/11. And this is something Kennedy stated and is being ridiculed for. (For all the naysayers out there, go back and read Shrub's OWN words and you can see his practice of linking the two time and time again).

Now, my question is, if the word impeachment is too outrageous to utter, then please, someone tell me in what cases it should it be uttered in?

Frankly, Shrub should go find Bill Clinton and thank him for lying about blow jobs and for creating impeachment fatigue in the American people. Because what he has done is far, far worse than a married man lying about getting head from an intern (and for those who cry, "But he was under OATH!", recall, two partisan judges allowed the Paula Jones' suit to go forward when almost all Constitutional and legal scholars continued to point out that she did not have civil action against him- but that is another debate).