You should rephrase that to “No attacks in the CONTINENTAL US.” You forgot about the Tanzania and Kenya (’98)
bombings. These are Embassy areas, therefore considered US soil. So by your argument, Bush is as effective as Clinton was. After all, Bush has gone 5 years, Clinton went 5

I am glad you are willing to pick up a past discussion:

Self-defense is what the Iraqi insurgency is doing…
Comment by Juan C — July 24, 2006 @ 6:32 pm

Now, let me ask you this, Juan–How are the insurgents engaging in “self-defense” when they set car bombs off in marketplaces filled with Iraqi civilains (as they did this week and have done frequently over the past months)? How are the insurgents engaging in “self-defense” when they set off a car-bomb at Mustansiriya University in Baghdad last month? Those bombings were directed at civilain Iraqi targets….Yet, you defend those violent acts directed at civilains as merely “self-defense.” How do you justify your defense of these attacks? These were not American military attacks on Iraqis. These were terrorist/”insurgent” attacks on Iraqi civilains. Yet, you do not condemn the terrorists who actually carry out these atrocities, but somehow twist the facts of these attacks to blame the U.S.

Please explain your position.

That’s because you’re the mouth breather, just like all dum basses.

…THEY WOULDN’T HAVE MADE THE SAME MISTAKE, DUMBASS!

Comment by Bluedog49 — February 22, 2007 @ 6:41 pm

I would never call you a dum bass.

Wow! I didnt expect that. Guess you left me with a big idiot face. Good night.

I just know you’re not calling me a dumbass, paul. Are you…?

P.S. Leave me the Gerta number and I concede that Bush planned 9/11.
Comment by paul

Not that easy, paul, Gerta will find you. Remember, you’ll be the one in the gimp suit. Brace yourself.

That’s true, but no thanks to you.

There were no attacks on american soil for 8 years of the first WTC event. So by your standards Clinton was more effective than Bush.

Then there’s the pentagon assessment that says our Iraq failures have strengthened Al Qaeda, not weakened it. But you haven’t met a fact you didn’t enjoy ignoring – did you paul.

You dimwits run on low wattage don’t you skippy?

As for damn needy kids, yes, you and your fellow republicans are.

Me: Clinton didn’t make the mistake of invading.

Are you saying that in a post 9/11 world, without the 5+ year track record of Bush successfully defending the country from further terror attacks, Clinton or any other democrat leader would not have addressed the threat of WMD in Iraq, even though they believed they existed? Remember, there were more than a dozen unheeded resolutions, negotiations weren’t working. What would the democrats have done (with your benefit of hindsight, of course).

Hillary makes the converse argument very effectively in her code pink youtube video, have I mentioned that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

In the clip, she laments how europe doesn’t have the will to address the serious threat that she realized and had realized since her husband was in office, (because the intel preceded Bush).

If the main thrust of you argument now, is that Bush had the conviction to address a threat while others preferred to bury their heads in the sand, maybe I could agree with you. But if you’re telling me he was wrong to act on intelligence he had at the time, after we had been attacked, I disagree. It would have been negligent not to act under the circumstances.

Bluedog. I respect you. I just disagree. I know I’m not going to change your mind, but although I don’t support impeachment, it’s obvious the answers you (and many here) seek are only going to be found in impeachment. If you are right, I would rather the world no about it, then for us to cover it up. I’m just very skeptical.

Either way, I’m confident the country would survive. (as long as their are no catchy phrases like: the glove didn’t fit, so you must acquit).

Anyways, good crowd; gotta go. (darn needy kids).

Stopping, or delaying?

Congress has to undo the messes you’ve created, one mess at a time.

Republicans in the Senate filibuster any legislation that isn’t right wingnut extremist.

Most of the media is still a right wing wh*re, just like you are.

You can’t impeach without a strong and clear majority.

It’s better to focus on 2 years correcting your legislative failures than 2 years wasted on Congressional efforts to prosecute this crook.

I could go on, but there’s lots of reasons to not impeach these b*stards even though they deserve it – and most of them are for the good of the country and related to governing instead of those piss poor attitudes of the Republicans under Clinton that had Clinton Derangement Syndrome. See paul, we care what’s best for the nation, you’ only care about what’s best for you and your fcuked up image.

Hey, paul, did you complain about why Middle Eastern inspectors didnt get the chance to inspect all US nuclear facilities? You know, it would be a good idea, cuz the only one county right now, threatening another country and occupying one is US.

Im thinking you wont answer…

Sure it is access, it’s just not access on your terms.

These were all things that the administration believed at the time. Acting on information based on less than perfect intelligence, is not a crime. It’s a indication we need better intelligence. Comment by paul — February 22, 2007 @ 7:42 pm

No they didn’t believe it. They had been debunked before they were ever pushed out to the public.

I’m sure you don’t like the answers, but again, the proof you’re going to need to have any real credibility is formal charges. Think about it. What’s stopping you. You have both houses of congress and a more than willing media. Should be a cakewalk. Comment by paul — February 22, 2007 @ 7:42 pm

Those aren’t answers, they’re excuses for lying and covering it up. Typical CON job from the CON party.

LIE: “We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.”
Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

The way I recall it, Saddam was giving inspectors trouble for years. Faining that are you are going to let in inspectors, then stalling or kicking them out, is not access, and looks like your stalling for time.

LIE: “Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003

LIE: “Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites.”
Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002

These were all things that the administration believed at the time. Acting on information based on less than perfect intelligence, is not a crime. It’s a indication we need better intelligence.

I’m sure you don’t like the answers, but again, the proof you’re going to need to have any real credibility is formal charges. Think about it. What’s stopping you. You have both houses of congress and a more than willing media. Should be a cakewalk.

Me: Clinton didn’t make the mistake of invading.

Paul: See, it was a MISTAKE, not a crime or a lie.

Me: Bush lied while selling the mistake to the American people.

Paul: Bush didn’t plan 9-11.

Me: OK, I give up. You’ve worn me down under the weight of illogical, strawman arguments leading nowhere.