Both things are true: there is "the need for impeachment," and "dishonesty has been proven." You do yourself a disservice by claiming otherwise without lifting a finger to address the proof that's been presented.

You're essentially claiming that we can't know anything for sure unless it's been proven in a court of law. That's nonsense. In human affairs, there's no such thing as absolute perfection, or perfect knowledge, even in a court of law. There's nothing magical about legal proceedings. While legal proceedings would offer greater confidence and a longer list of examples, dishonesty has already been proven, according to any standard of common sense, and ordinary usage of these words.

You keep asking for evidence. There's lots and lots and lots of documentation that the Bushies knew the specific claims they were making about aluminum tubes, yellowcake, and a Saddam role in 9/11 were incorrect at the time they were making them.

I can't post book chapters online, so give us an email adress where I can send you PDFs.

It would be nice if we had a two-party system. Unfortunately, the same corporate elite that owns and operates the GOP also has a large ownership interest in the DNC. We have the best government money can buy.

To understand the real story of the war, just look here, here, here, and here. Total amount of reading: about fifty words.

Anybody who argues that Bush didn't lie without addressing Senator Graham's statements in particular isn't worth spending the electrons on.

Exactly.

Expressions like "absolute certainty" and "no doubt" were used on many occasions (some relevant citations summarized here).

That's the core problem: Bush et al expressed "absolute certainty," even though the underlying intel was very far from absolutely certain. In other words, they lied. When you pretend to know something you don't actually know, here's what you are: a liar.

It's nice to see Joyner acknowledging they "cherry picked information," but this profoundly understates what happened. The deception went far beyond just cherry-picking. When Cheney claimed "absolute certainty" about the tubes, that was fabrication, not cherry-picking. How do we know? Because even Joe, the hawk in the CIA who was the central source of the centrifuge claim, did not make a statement as strong as what Cheney and Rice said.

Lying implies malice and intentional deceit

By your definition, Clinton did not lie. There was no malice on his part in parsing his words to mislead.

Rather than using your manufactured definition why don't we stick to Webster's or OED for our definitions?
According to Webster:
lie
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive verb
: to bring about by telling lies (he lied his way out of trouble or he lied us into war)

It is possible to parse Clinton's statement (I did not have sexual relations with that woman...) in such a way that it does not meet definition 1. According to Webster's sexual relations = sexual intercourse = heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis*.
One can do the same with most of Bush's (and his admin's) statements.

Now if we take the more inclusive definition 2, then Clinton clearly lied. He was certainly trying "to create a false or misleading impression."
If we are going to use this definition we should remain consistent and apply the same standard in both cases. Using this second definition it is clear that Bush and others in his administration lied. They consistently tried "to create the false or misleading impression" that it was certain that Iraq possessed WMDs and had a collaborative relationship with Al Qaida. The intelligence that was given to them at the time came with many caveats and uncertainties. At the time there was also evidence given to them that directly contradicted claims they made (re aluminum tubes and uranium from Niger). They continued to portray the evidence as one sided and definitive when they had information that it was far from so. By the standard you have set for Clinton they also are liars.
By the same token one cannot claim on most of these counts that they lied and Clinton did not. One can, however, point to the relative importance of the issues and the relative consequences and find that justice was far from evenly applied on all fronts.

* def 1 of sexual intercourse in Webster's

I remember hearing on TV that the Iraq-Africa connection was not what the President said it was. I heard it within hours of the fatal State of the Union in which fear was unwisely used to start war. However, I quickly noticed that this fact never changed the direction things were going in (towards war).

So this article does not accurately represent the report. What does appear to be false is the degree of certainty with which the case for war was made, when there was a lot of known indication to the contrary (visit the Public Integrity center website).

Also, we were told this would be a short, cheap cakewalk, paid for by Iraq oil (not endless occupation to be paid for by American children and grandchildren). Yet they did not tell us of the information they had about the likelihood of insurgency and score-settling if the US went into Bagdad. In the 90's Cheney gave reasons for the US not going into Baghdad in the first Iraq war--reasons which have proved to be major results of the current occupation. If they were truly honest with us, they would have told us about these concerns as major likelihoods up front, because that was also part of the Iraqi intelligence, and we were not warned that this was a likelihood, rather, there was a salesjob done to make it sound necessary, easy and beneficial (I view it as salesmanship over statesmanship).

I don't claim to know the conscience of the officials who fomented war, but the true extent to which knowing lies were told by specific US officials is known by God, who knows the relationship between outer words and the heart of a person, so ultimately their actions will be in His just hands.

It is very easy to see that anything pointing towards war was maximized and the considerable amount of contradictory information was given very little weight in making the judgment for aggressive war. And many lives were spent as a result, so that is something to reflect on, the degree to which this was a wise, responsible decision to go to war based on the information that was not considered airtight in intelligence circles, but was presented with a much higher degree of certainty by politicians.

I hope our nation and world learns from this type of behavior and is not perpetually foolish enough to elect leaders who continually insist on foreign war whether it is the will of the people or not, or even if it hurts the nation, as has this war with more harm than benefit for the interests of the average American. Needless war damages national psyches. I hope we have more integrity in our leadership, and that the government serve the needs of the people, not ego-driven ambitions, needless fears and wargames at immense cost of life and treasure to so many. But rather policies of wisdom for the common good. God bless America.

Lying implies malice and intentional deceit

Please search for Office for Special Plans or Stove piping

Roderick: and the current Iraqi government has allowed some of those same Baathists back into the government.

So what exactly have the deaths of almost 4000 U.S. soldiers accomplished?

I've done years of grunt work on that topic for http://www.regimeofterror.com and have documented HUNDREDS of ex Saddam Baathists caught working with al Qaeda since 2002

Nobody denies that since we overthrew the country that the ex-baathists have sometimes worked with the AQI crowd. That being the case your argument is not really relevant.

I am so sick and tired of liars in the press who don't know a damn thing about the topic spouting this crap off.

Don't be so hard on yourself there, tiger.