> What has been left out? Sam, you're making me sick. "Reprehensible entrapment tactics"? Oh God help me. Rather, it's "Reprehensible diversion tactics" that are being employed by Bill Clinton.
> Use your mind Sam. You aren't stupid.
>
> Green"*gag* *puke*"Jeanz

I understand that your dislike for Clinton is so passionate as to cause you to gag and puke, but perhaps that's why you are refusing to see that there's possibly another color besides black or white. I've been telling you all along that I do not like Clinton, and that I think there is some definite wrongdoing he is responsible for. What I'm saying is that it does not constitute an impeachable offense, and that if we make an impeachable offense, the negative ramifications it will have on the basic freedoms we have as citizens of this country will be terrible. Perhaps your young mind sees this matter in terms of goodguys and badguys and how everybody should get their just desserts in the end. But there is more to this than that. There are very real issues of freedoms, moral legal procedures, nationalism, and treason here, and the outcome of this controversy will have very real impact not just on the nation as a whole but our rights and liberties as citizens that reach FAR beyond Bill Clinton's political career or lack thereof. The ends do NOT justify the means. In this matter, it's all ABOUT the means. The ends are almost irrelevant -- Clinton's out of office in a year anyway. But the means -- heavens, just *look* at the means the Republican party is using to get these impeachment proceedings moving. If anything, the Republican party is using Clinton's lasciviousness to wag *you* -- using it as an excuse to strike a blow against the opposing party. They've resorted to political blackmail, threatening Republican House Representatives that if they don't vote for the impeachment, they can kiss their careers goodbye. Does that sound right to you? 73% of Americans, in a poll conducted yesterday, believe the strike against Iraq was entirely warranted and was not a case of wagging the dog. With our government supposedly a representative of the people, doesn't it sound like that's perhaps what he *should* be doing regarding Iraq? (Not that government actions should always be based on poll results -- part of the job of our representatives is to be *smarter* than us about what should be done politically, yet still keeping the interests of the people at the solitary forefront.)

I do not appreciate the implications of your post. I have been using my brain. I'll wager I've considered the issue and discussed it more meaningfully and at greater length. This is NOT a black and white issue. Clearly it isn't, if I'm a staunch Republican, dislike Clinton, and yet see fit to go against my party in this one instance.