I have never defended Clinton lying under oath, however, I have pointed out that Clinton was ambushed by a devious crowd. By this I mean, Paula Jones never had true legal action against him. As I have said, oddly enough, her legal action was against the American Spectator Magazine, David Brock and various others, however a very partisan three judge panel allowed a legal action that many legal scholars said would eventually be thrown out to go forward. One last thing about Clinton and Jones, check her work evaluations - they IMPROVED after his reported dropping of the trousers.

But contrast this to Shrub et al's lies. From all of the sources out there, there has not been one credible source that has offered facts stating his lies are created by the opposition. Where is the proof of the following: Iraq was behind 9/11; Iraq had mobile WMD labs; Iraq bought uranium from Africa; Iraq had high strenght aluminum tubes for the creation of nuclear material; that Hussein had ties to bin Laden; the WMD's and on and on.

So, Richard, if you are basing Clinton's lies about blow jobs as justification for an impeachment, then what is the end result for Shrub? Jail?

And you call us Partisans......