Lies produced spills of differing import

Generally, I'm not a fan of letters to the editor that are responses to someone else's response to someone else's letter, but I just couldn't let the Aug. 8 letter from Joan Fernandes go without challenge.

In answer to her first question, no, President Bill Clinton was not impeached for not authorizing an incursion into a foreign country with whom we were not at war.

If we are going to suggest that Clinton should have been impeached for not knowing that Sept. 11 was going to happen years before it happened, shouldn't we consider impeachment for President George Bush for not knowing it was going to happen when he had the facts presented to him just weeks prior?

In answer to her second question, yes, Clinton was impeached as a result of his sexual dalliance in the White House, or, more accurately, for lying about it. The current President Bush lied to the public about Iraq's involvement in Sept. 11 and about its potential to develop and use weapons of mass destruction in the near future. The result was the death of more than 3,000 American troops and an untold number of Iraqi civilians.

I'm trying to understand Fernandes' priorities. Lies that pertain to spilled semen are more deserving of impeachment than lies that result in spilled American and Iraqi blood?

Mary Hunter

Carpentersville