> The question is, should we not demand truth from all Presidents, and not just pick and choose which ones we want the truth from?

Yes, we should. And we do.

Full disclosure: I voted twice for Clinton. When evidence of his perjury and obstruction of justice became part of the public record, I fully supported his impeachment. What he did clearly fell into the category of "high crimes and misdemeanors", and the Constitution is crystal clear about what to do with a President who is guilty of such an act.

I also voted for George Bush in 2000. His apparent lies about Iraqi WMD in order to launch a preemptive war are serious charges indeed. I wasn't sure that his acts were impeachable offenses, however, until I read this article by John Dean (a Republican who knows a thing or two about impeachment). There is a clear precedence set in the Nixon case that manipulating the intelligence apparatus for political gain is an impeachable offense. If Bush intentionally lied about WMD in order to justify war -- which I believe he did, but which would need to be proven by Congress -- then he should be impeached.

As far as consistency in demanding honesty from public officials, the *real* issue is this: will the Republicans in Congress (such as Henry Hyde, whom I respect), who spoke so eloquently about truth, the Constitution, and the President in 1998, have the integrity and courage to speak out in 2003 as well? The world awaits.

"Nothing sacred but the truth", as one local newspaper says.