Wake up, for heaven's sake.
Polls injure your predispositions; therefore they can't be right. It's infantile Republican dogma long become a cliche.

What presidential poll since 1948, that's almost sixty years, pal, has been wrong?

I do not equate polls showing support for Clinton to equate lack of concern for lying under oath, or even a feeling that questions were inappropriate.

For some reason, people liked the guy. Maybe a lot can be learned from him, in the Democratic party. Reference his setting aside differences to speak intelligently to the President. The alternative being liberal frothing-at-the-mouth.

LOL! ... Damn, how did that leak? I'm sorry you found me out, LJD, because now I'll have to kill you!

Back to the facts:

First, I do not believe that “most” people felt Clinton’s questioning was inappropriate. I feel “most” Americans feel their president should not lie under oath. Most Americans understand that boinking your secretary, on the job, ususally results in job loss.

LJD's beliefs & feelings aside, the polls were stunningly in Clinton's favor as impeachment mounted ... I remember numbers in the 60%'s saying that the "impeach Clinton" stuff was going too far. My memory is bolstered by my surprise at the numbers; down in Mississippi, they felt more like 90% to draw & quarter ol' Bill.

On September 30, 2004, President Bush is quoted as saying ?If there is a leak out of my administration, I...

First, I do not believe that "most" people felt Clinton's questioning was inappropriate. I feel "most" Americans feel their president should not lie under oath. Most Americans understand that boinking your secretary, on the job, ususally results in job loss.

The difference in our philosophies, is that regardless of what the hordes living in metropolitan areas of our country think, the Constitution protects my basic rights. They are absolutely NOT negotiable. It seems the left thinks they can do whatever they want with a simple majority. God help us.

LOL, yea, we all know the White House website is a reliable source. These guys scrub their own site.

Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html

With the whole quote, it's clear that he hasn't reframed anything.

Rove belongs in prison not in the white house and for that matter so does someone that is responsible for the deaths of untold thousands in Iraq/
Impeach bush and the entire bush crime family

by the way; most of my fellow soldiers agree with me

Sure Fersboo, the President and his adminsitration would never mislead us....

Now its mislead? I thought it was about 'outing a CIA officer during wartime'.

Anjin, all you have to do is scroll up and you can see what you wrote earlier.

I guess just blindly following the president (who I whatever "ILK" I belong to, voted for), is easier then thinking for oneself, which can cut into ones TV time.

Does kneejerk conservatism really destroy one's reading skills? I'm starting to wonder.

L.O., I was obviously & expressly talking about popular attitudes, not the law. Perjury is perjury, legally speaking. Speeding is just as illegal as murder. But people can base their moral & ethical judgments on more than just "oh, he broke the law."

I happen to think the majority had it right on Clinton's perjury, but I don't think that because a majority thought so; I think so for some of the same reasons that they did.

Starr asking Clinton whether he put his penis in Lewinsky's mouth, in a case that was supposedly about Whitewater, was an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. It's like if Patrick Fitzgerald found out Karl Rove was gay and asked him under oath whether he watched gay porn videos. I'd be pissed as hell if F. did that, however much schadenfreude I might also feel.

The power to drag someone before a grand jury and require sworn testimony has very few constraints, and that makes it all the more important that it be exercised with sound discretion.

Bush may very well have said what you think he said (inconcievable!) - he could have said 'broke the law' last summer, and I haven't seen the quote. His 30 Sep statement could be interpreted that way. But McClellan's 29 Sep statement flatly cannot - he said 'involved in'. And he said those were the President's words. And whether it happened last summer or last week, going from 'involved in' to 'broke the law' _is_ re-framing.

So, the American people are supposed to decide the law?

That's such a patently asinine statement, I almost want to ignore it. But I can't.

Yes, you twit, the American people _do_ decide the law. That whole "of the people, by the people, and for the people" thing from junior-high civics class? Remember that?

If a lot of people feel something should be illegal, they tell their representative in Congress to make it a law. If that law is (as many you describe in your post would be) unconstitutional, enough people can vote to change the Constitution. But that takes a whole helluva lot of people feeling very strongly about something to make that happen.

I'll give you credit for getting one thing right, tho - there is no particular connection between 'legal' and 'right'.