So, let me understand this. If a president commits purjury in order to benifit himself, this is ok and no action should be taken. If a president makes a decision based on the information he has, and that information is later found to be suspect, it is an impeachable offence? Of course, at the same time he should have taken action to prevent something that he did not have actionable information, to prevent a terrorist action. I think I see a double standard...

BTW, check the articles of impeachment for Nixon and Clinton... I guess one might have to say that Nixon was a more honorable person. Must have been the Quaker in him ( see other thread)

Anyway, the term was " liar and a fraud as well as a murderous, double-faced son of a bitch. " Does any of this NOT apply to Clinton?