Do it, Bob, impeach him. Things are slow now and no one's going to mind/notice. It certainly won't look petty and no one's going to notice the tit-for-tat nature of your small-mindedness. Nothing is more important right now than you getting even and putting the future of SS, the war on terrorism, Iraq, et. al. on hold. Fine with me.

If you want to screw yourself into the ground, I have the philips head.

No kidding torpedo...hand him the screwdriver, but I'll sledge him into the ground for ya. What a bunch of petty bastards the dems are... no integrity, no original thoughts, no common sense, and certainly no manners or good looks. The only thing left to show us is that they have foot odor....and I certainly believe Al Sharpton would win that challenge and i'm sorry to report that Carol Mosely B comes in second by a whiff!! ha ha

8, Dick:
Thanks again for another ends justify the means bit of reasoning. I dont know if you two notice but Bush LIES. HE LIES ALOT. This is an administration that lies alot. But when all the republicans stay 'on message' they dont get called on it. You guys seem to think that he's the only person who can lead us. But face it: Bush is a moron who lies alot. He's not tough to replace.

8, Dick:
Thanks again for another ends justify the means bit of reasoning. I dont know if you two notice but Bush LIES. HE LIES ALOT. This is an administration that lies alot. But when all the republicans stay 'on message' they dont get called on it. You guys seem to think that he's the only person who can lead us. But face it: Bush is a moron who lies alot. He's not tough to replace.

8, Dick:
Thanks again for another ends justify the means bit of reasoning. I dont know if you two notice but Bush LIES. HE LIES ALOT. This is an administration that lies alot. But when all the republicans stay 'on message' they dont get called on it. You guys seem to think that he's the only person who can lead us. But face it: Bush is a moron who lies alot. He's not tough to replace.

sorry about the multiple post.

Bush lies? Compared to the Clintons and the DNC Bush is a paragon of virtue. None of Bush's crew have been convicted of fraud or mismanagment, unlike the Clintons. Bush never aruged about the definition of "is". He said Niger sold uranium to Iraq, and the Brits agreed. The only thing wrong was one of the Brits pieces of evidence was bad. I didn't hear the DNC make this huge of an uproar when Clintoned missiled the plant in afganistan and claimed that it produced poison. This whole "misleading the nation into war" thing is all vengance by the DNC because they can't come up with any useful policy alternatives then "Raise taxes then distribute the money to our voting blocks"

..you just have to pity these folks!

Okay Aaron, I understand the mindset: Bush lies, the Supreme Court SELECTED him President, blah blah blah.

But here's the point: back in 2002 EVERYONE agreed that Saddam had to go - EVEN THE DEMOCRATS, who voted overwhelmingly to give Bush the option to wage war (albeit, this was highly unconstitutional and illegal, but that's another post).

We KNEW, because Saddam ADMITTED to the UN inspectors, that Iraq possessed thousands of gallons/pounds of sarin, tabun, mustard gas, VX, blistering agents, etc. We know from defectors and German investigators that Iraq was working on the Big Gun, which was a huge cannon buried in the ground, pointing at Israel. Germany halted the last few shipments of the barrel, which is the only reason the Big Gun was uncompleted. Israel knew the French reactor built for Saddam was manufacturing U-235 for bombs and took it out unilaterally in 1981 after determining the risks were too great to ignore.

We KNEW Iraq lent material support and resources to terrorists, going so far as to having one or two 727 layouts for the practice of hijacking.

So we invade and lay the leadership low, quickly. Given 14 months to 2 years to hide so-called WMDs anywhere, no such are found (just like OJ's knife).

Now, suddenly, we are supposed to believe the ONLY reason the American public and Congress gave their assent to the attack was because Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger? And based on these lies, we ACCIDENTALLY attacked an innocent country? And - based on faulty information that was inserted into the State of the Union address - that we should impeach Bush?

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Try the carrier landing thing again, I think you were getting more traction with that.

Wait a second, isnt Bob Graham a senior senator? And as such wasnt he privy to the same intelligence that Bush was? Funny how he is opening his mouth now, if this was such a critical issue. Why didnt he say something then? Oh yeh, it was politically bad for him then. But this issue is about the life and death of American soldiers right? So basically either the issue is BS (which deep down we all know it is), or Graham let Americans die at the time because it was politically expediant. Any crack in that line of reasoning?