idrankwhat

While I agree with you on the premise, I can't let them off that easily. Congress was a bunch of spineless candy asses who abdicated their responsibility. What they signed was technically what you described however they basically "washed their hands" of it and threw the responsibility to make war into the hands of a Crusading, willful pawn.

You're right. I'm beginning to think it's deliberate. If it weren't for Foley's problems then we certainly would have had more focus on John Warner's "cut and run" speech last week

Here's a recent example of what happens when you don't give them what they want, even if you do your job well in front of the supreme court. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/09/ap/national/mainD8KKQ7T00.shtml

You're right. The cost of the war has nothing to do with the cherry picking of intelligence. The good intel was ignored and the bad intel (Chalibi, curveball) was embraced. It's all well documented as are the lies that they contiune to spread EVEN TODAY about the link between Saddam and al Qaeda. People were bullied into giving the information that was desired and excluded from the meetings if anything arose that did not fit the policy. You either play their game and give them what they want or you're gone. And if Sen Roberts would get off his ass and allow the investigation to go forward then we could get this over with. Personally, I think that the notion that our leadership would intentionally manipulate intelligence to get us into a war is a very strong accusation. Let the investigation that was promised us go forward. If they conclude that the Vulcans were actually fooled into a war then all then good for them. If they find out otherwise............

On the other hand, I don't recall the Democrats proposing and passing legislation to retroactively make what Clinton did legal. Seems to be a lot of that nowadays.

"Shimmer" I believe. The best shine you ever tasted.

You know, I keep hearing that it's the "Dems" who are driving this story in order to hurt the Cons. Could have fooled me

By ignoring the good intel and deliberately choosing the bad intel. The investigation of how the WH used the intel or if they manipulated it is the subject of the second part of the 9/11 investigation. Senator Pat Roberts, who's in charge of the investigation committee has said that he's not going to do it. Basically the R's said they'd do it prior to an election then they shelved it after the election. Which gets to the answer for this threads question. He's not been impeached because he's being protected by his political party, the rubber stamp in charge of the "checks and balances" of the executive branch.

Or like this^^^? It would have been pretty easy to find a site that actually debunked the claims that Clinton is somehow directly tied to the deaths of 56 people - most of which where on his bad side. Me going to look up information that debunks an unsubstantiated accusation makes no sense and is a complete waste of time. But that's the level to which our political discourse has been lowered. An baseless accusation is made and then it's up to the other guy to debunk it. I'll admit, I should have let the original comment pass like the turd that it was but I'm running on a very few hours sleep. I was never that much of a Clinton supporter but I have come to his defense because I got sick and tired of the near decade long series of personal attacks that had nothing to do with his leadership. It ticked me off that there was never any discourse about his policy, it was all about his penis and most of the attacks were as valid as the one that we're talking about here. The last straw for me was when the R's shut down the government and ruined my week long climbing trip to Rainier so they could have an extended holiday and do a little political posturing at taxpayer expense. I'm still pissed about that one. They owe me some airfare...and some punitive damages. What was the question again? Damn, I'm wandering. So I'll just say in closing..."Sorry Laura, I didn't mean to drag you into this. I know your's was an accident. Your husband however has a lot of blood on his hands and he deserves every personal attack he receives." Oh yea, I'm glad that we finally quit talking about the Foley crap. It's good to talk about other things that are equally unimportant.

Sure, I think that GTAvercetti pointed out the link to the RNC memo that stated that it was the official campaign strategy of choice for them this fall Holy non sequitur, robin. WRONG. Very sequitur indeed. How is a story about the RNC's preference for negative ads relevant to ad hominem attacks by posters in this forum? Is this the old "Well, Johnny did it" rationale? You mean "how is a story about RNC ad hominem attacks releveant to ad hominem attacks? I'll leave that one alone. But what are you talking about? My use of "hannitization"? That's not attacking you, that's attacking that particular argument style. It's used frequently by the talk radio folks and it drives me up the wall. I'll summarize. "Clinton killed a bunch of people" "What are you talking about, he didn't kill anyone" "Are you crazy? Are you trying to tell me that those people aren't dead". "Well sure they're dead but that's......." "So you agree that he's a killer. And you're defending his actions, well that's just sick (other party is silently disconnected)....You know that's what these libs and their complicit media are all about. They hate America and Justice cute little babies and they love commies and terrorists and that's why you need to listen to my program because I'm the beacon of truth who will protect you from those crazys out there. I'd go on but we have to take another 10 minute break for commercials, half of which I recorded".

I'm just trying to figure out why you try to put the call for Hastert's resignation solely on the Democrats when in fact it has been bipartisan. Failing to recognize that you're doing it makes it look like you're solely interested in Dem bashing. So if he resigns, will it be the "Dems fault"? As for Pelosi, why should she take a polygraph? What good would that do? The results mean nothing and it's a no win situation for her. If she passes then it's "She lies so much and she's gotten so good at it that it can't even be picked up on a polygraph". If she gets a squiggle on the line then "she's needs to resign". 'Bout right? By the way, you're doing a great service to your party. We haven't talked about anything of substance in days!!!

Why do you continue to ignore the call for Hastert's resignation from made from Republicans and the Conservative press? Can we demand Pelosi and Emanuel resign as well, since they refuse to undergo polygraphs to determine what *THEY* knew and when they knew it?? It was a simple question.

Sure, I think that GTAvercetti pointed out the link to the RNC memo that stated that it was the official campaign strategy of choice for them this fall

You're quite the one trick pony, aren't you? Seems like about half of your posts in the "Speakers Corner" mention family values and taking personal responsibility. Using hot button phrases over and over and over again, isn't the same as making relevant points. It's called the Al Franken debate strategy. Repeating the same thing over and over again and people become as interested it what one has to say as they are in the Al Franken Show. You mean like "we're the party of morality", "the American people are safer", "flip flop", "cut and run", "terrrrists, Saddam, terrrrists, Iraq, 9/11", and "republicans are stronger on National defense"?

I've found changing the subject is always a good way to avoid the issue. Actually I wasn't changing any issue. I can't provide information for something that didn't happen. I can provide information for something that actually has happened. You wanted a death list, I gave you one, actually I gave you two so you owe me one edited to add: Wait, you owe me two. And I was about to let it slide.

Why do you continue to ignore the call for Hastert's resignation from made from Republicans and the Conservative press?

WTF does FEMA funding an outreach program have to do with DHS?? You should have asked your leadership that question earlier

Really? I've not seen anything debunking it yet... can you point me to a link? Guilty until proven innocent huh. How about this death list? Laura Bush: one ex-boyfriend. George W: http://iraqbodycount.org/

I didn't give a crap about Clinton's lie and I don't give a crap about Foley either. Foley's gone and Clinton's lie was of absolutely no consequence. The issues here, which are also of no real consequence, are with the hypocrisy. It's slightly amusing that the right came into office touting a superior sense of morality and have proven that they are no better than those they replaced. It's also amusing/frustrating that the right is bitching about the media's handling of this, supposedly either blowing it out of proportion or being in cahoots with the Democrats in order to make things difficult for the Republicans. The Clinton affair (pun intended) was blown way out of proportion yet the overly Righteous Right did nothing but help fuel the media firestorm. Again, they are no better than their counterparts. But what's the common denominator? It's the media and its customers. This stupid shit sells...PERIOD! The only bias around here is towards the payout. The media, and hell...the politicians for that matter, are in it for the money and we're all dumber for it.

mmmm....I'm not so sure about that

I have never said there has to be a date. I don't know what the oficially stated strategy is. I certainly can't find it on a government website. If you know, please tell me. Here's one from a "lefty" website. But since "lefty's" just want to "cut and run" and "don't have any ideas" I'm sure that the right won't have anything to do with it. http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/strategic_redeployment_2.0.pdf

Capitalism kept in check by various laws to protect workers/consumers/environment/etc? Government as a moderating influence isn't a bad idea, nor is it "socialism". Just think what would happen to a completely free market Speakers Corner if it didn't have a small band of moderators

I wasn't sure of the status of Jefferson so I went looking. Found this site. Interesting stuff. I also happened to note the list of the top 25 bad guys listed. See a pattern? http://www.beyonddelay.org

Had to share this one. I just got it from a Republican friend of mine. A real Republican, not one of those new ones