Zogby poll - the " I " word

[John of Phoenix]

Impeachment is favored by 42% if GW is found to have lied about the reasons for invading Iraq.

Where did THAT come from? His approval rating slipped to a new low (42%) after his latest 9/11 speech, but I’d never heard any widespread call for impeachment.

[Meerkat]

I thought that Shrub's approval rating had been at 42% for some time?

[Bruce Hooke]

While I am certainly no fan of our current President I have to say that I suspect a significant percentage of the 42% are people who would like to see him impeached if any reasonable excuse can be found to do so! :D

[Meerkat]

IMO, reasonable excuses abound for impeaching him!

[TomF]

Bruce, I think you're on to something. I doubt that the poll figures would have been much different prior to the election...

More than indicating a change in support or in popular opinion, I wonder if this just underscores the division in the electorate.

[John of Phoenix]

Correction redface.gif - 43% is the approval rating, down from 44%.

Red state support is slipping, now 50% give him thumb's down.

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

[Bruce Hooke]

What I think is notable is how low his approval rating appears to be. Also, while a fair percentage of that 42% have not liked Bush from the start I think the figure of 42% is lower than it would have been a couple of years ago...

Edited to correct the direction of change! redface.gif

[ 07-07-2005, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Bruce Hooke ]

[Billy Bones]

You kids just don't get it. Bush's approval rating only soars (if you can call it that) when he's compared to any democratic opponent. A tiny minority of people voted for the guy, but a slight majority voted against kerry.

There is absolutely no reason for Bush's approval to be any higher than it is mid term. You liberals have the constant hammering bit down pat, and it's working. What you haven't got is a reasonable solution to anything.

[John of Phoenix]

Bruce, that’s 42% who <U>approve</U>. That means somewhere around 55% DISapprove, with 3% undecided, apparently having spent the last five years enjoying inter-planetary travel.

[Bruce Hooke]

Originally posted by John Teetsel:
Bruce, that’s 42% who <U>approve</U>. That means somewhere around 55% DISapprove, with 3% undecided, apparently having spent the last five years enjoying inter-planetary travel.Woops...please see my correction...I understand that it is the percentage who approve but I wrote the wrong thing...

[Chris Coose]

The electorate opinion matters nothing to the dubbya and his cronies the only numbers they are interested in are the rise of a price per barrell to $75.00 when he is moving on.

They don't even care what 2006 will look like. They are meeting and will meet their desired numbers.

[rbhawk]

Originally posted by Billy Bones:
You kids just don't get it. Bush's approval rating only soars (if you can call it that) when he's compared to any democratic opponent.
...uhh....

bush's approval history (http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval_files/Approval_27267_image001.gif)

[Meerkat]

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval_files/Approval_27267_image001.gif

[High C]

:D

[Billy Bones]

Uhhh, yourself. Proves my point exactly, although I shouldn't have referred to his 'Approval Rating' but his anecdotal aproval on the street-definitely not the same thing.

[Victor]

You guys are dreaming if you think he'll ever be impeached. Clinton's impeachment was proffered by the very people who are running things now. Ompeachment is for having sex and lying about it, not for starting wars and lying about them. As some said at the time.

[LeeG]

nice chart,,so GW is only a little lower than when he was elected,,9/11-Iraq war were bumps, in the big picture he had a solid C and he's working on a solid C-.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Victor:
Ompeachment is for having sex and lying about it, not for starting wars and lying about them."Ompeachment" - so that's what they call sticking your willy into a peach? :D

Actually, impeachment is for any reason that Congress decides it is. Only Congress determines what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" for the purposes of impeachment.

[Billy Bones]

And I think "the rule of law" (and hence the basis for any impeachment proceeding) is a strictly republican bugaboo. (Nevermind I believe in it firmly).

What would impeachment accomplish that liberal libel hasn't? Would it win any votes? No substantive evidence for any lie has been uncovered. But if it turns up, what's to say that Bush doesn't pull an Ollie North and become a hero? Be careful what you wish for.

[huisjen]

My understanding, and I don't remember my source, is that when the Republicans went to impeach Clinton, they never thought it would actually go through. They just thought it was a cool way to make a political jab.

Now we say that impeaching Shrub would never actually go through, but let's see what congress looks like in a year and a half.

Dan

[Jack Heinlen]

If it's demonstrated, by more than a few lines in a British secret memo, that he led us to war on trumped up evidence, I'd be for impeachment. I hate to say that because I don't think it would be the best thing for the country right now, but sometimes you have to do what's correct, even if it's very difficult.

[Victor]

I guess what you mean is that since he believed them, they weren't lies. Ah, ideology, such a beautiful thing! Right, Congress decides what is an impeachable offense and Congress is Republican, remember? Wars OK, blowjobs not OK. Why is anyone surprised? This war would have been brought to us in 92 if not for Clinton. Pardone, Meer, forgot the spellchecker. Impeachment, forget it, it's all just liberal libel, unlike Monicagate.

[High C]

Originally posted by Victor:
...blowjobs not OK....Incorrect

Perjury

[Keith Wilson]

True, it was alleged perjury, not the blowjob. Perjury in the course of a trumped-up investigation of something that no reasonable person had any business investigating, but nonetheless . . .

So, HighC, a hypothetical: Let's say it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bush knew it was extremely unlikely Saddam Hussein had chemical or biological weapons, yet he made the case for war largely based on "WMDs". Say someone in the administration leaked genuine confidential memos showing precisely that. What would you think about impeachment then?

[ 07-07-2005, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[htom]

Clinton was found to be in civil contempt of court for intentionally making knowingly false statements to the court, which is different -- somehow -- from perjury (which is a criminal charge.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/contempt041399.htm

[High C]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
True, it was alleged perjury...Nothing alleged about it. President Clinton was found guilty of contempt for committing perjury, heavily fined and disbarred. And it was relative to a civil suit brought against him by an individual, not from any government investigation.

Your second paragraph is rather silly. The entire world was convinced that Hussein had WMDs. There is still no proof that he did not, and lots of behavioral and circumstantial evidence that he did. He even used them on his own people.

President Bush and some thirty other nations acted on that intelligence. Clinton acted on the same intelligence, though in half assed fashion to district attention from his perjury problems.

This impeachment talk is the biggest laugh we've had out of the Democrats in a good long while! :D

[ 07-08-2005, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: High C ]

[High C]

.

[ 07-08-2005, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: High C ]

[George.]

Originally posted by High C:
The entire world was convinced that Hussein had WMDs. Convinced by the Bush propaganda machine...

I seem to recall a certain Swedish weapons inspector, whose job it was to determine these things and who had access to all available information, who was most vehemently NOT convinced.

[Hughman]

Originally posted by Billy Bones:
Be careful what you wish for.If sucessful, it would be Cheny as President.....

(as if it isn't already)

[huisjen]

Yes, briefly, and his cardiologist as a member of the cabinet, just so he'd be handy.

I don't remember who's #3. Speaker of the House?

Dan

[Keith Wilson]

HighC, you didn't answer the question.

[High C]

Originally posted by George.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
The entire world was convinced that Hussein had WMDs. Convinced by the Bush propaganda machine...</font>[/QUOTE]George, the "Bush propoganda machine" was not in place a decade before he took office. We had been fretting over this since the early 90s. Many people wanted to take action against Iraq then. This was not Bush's creation. :rolleyes:

Keith, I did answer the question, by pointing out that it was an absurd question.

[Chris Coose]

Originally posted by High C:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by High C:
[qb] This was not Bush's creation. :rolleyes:
Dubbya pushed the button the day he walked into the oval office. He fabricated almost every motive for the invasion.
That's what matters.

[ 07-08-2005, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Chris Coose ]

[Keith Wilson]

A hypothetical can be absurd, but opinions may differ on exactly how absurd this one is.

If it were demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush knew it was extremely unlikely that Saddam Hussein had chemical or biological weapons, yet still made the case for invading Irag largely on that basis (however unlikely that may be), then what would you think about impeachment?

Personally, I don't think he did, being unwilling to attribute to machiavellian cunning what can be easily explained by blundering, but I'd be interested in your answer.

[Mrleft8]

For what it's worth, the "entire world" was not convinced that Saddam had WMD. I wasn't convinced. I wasn't even slightly inclined to believe that he had WMD.

[High C]

Keith, there are lots of good reasons why intelligent people refuse to answer hypothetical questions. There are also multiple reasons for having invaded Iraq, reasons strategic, practical, and moral. WMDs, and when and where they existed were but one element, regardless of what the President's PR people may have deemed necessary to "sell" the necessity war to the barely informed.

I fully support the action and remain optimistic that it will turn out well. That history will show a major turning point in the Middle East, for the better, to have begun around the year 2001.

[Keith Wilson]

I fully support the action and remain optimistic that it will turn out well. That history will show a major turning point in the Middle East, for the better, to have begun around the year 2001.I really hope you're right. I wouldn't bet on it, but just about everyone would be better off if it works out that way.

Doesn't the idea of using dubious information to "sell" a war in a democracy to the "barely informed" give you any trouble?

[ 07-08-2005, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[High C]

Originally posted by Mrleft8:
For what it's worth, the "entire world" was not convinced that Saddam had WMD. I wasn't convinced. I wasn't even slightly inclined to believe that he had WMD.Didn't even believe it when the world watch in horror as he used them on his own Kurdish people, ehh? At what point did you become convinced he no longer had them? What convinced you? Was it the decade long shell game with the UN weapons inspectors? Was it the 12,000 pages of scrap paper he dumped on the UN's desk in response to a demand for proof that the weapons had been destroyed just before the invasion? Or was it the propaganda flowing from the President's political opponents?

[TomF]

For me, it was the fact that UN inspectors found nothing. And my view was confirmed by the US searches, and ultimately the CIA statement saying the same.

I'm not disputing that Saddam had WMD at one point - he obviously did. I just do not believe that he had substantial caches still when the invasion occurred. And I agree with the CIA report, that there seems little if any evidence of large-scale transfers of WMDs to Syria or anywhere else, to simply get them out of sight.

And finally, given that the insurgency includes elements of the old regime ... you'd think that any remaining WMDs would have been used by now against coalition and Iraqi troops. They've no compunction against using suicide bombers etc., why would one think that if the WMDs still existed, that some at least wouldn't have been used?

t.

[Mrleft8]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mrleft8:
For what it's worth, the "entire world" was not convinced that Saddam had WMD. I wasn't convinced. I wasn't even slightly inclined to believe that he had WMD.Didn't even believe it when the world watch in horror as he used them on his own Kurdish people, ehh? At what point did you become convinced he no longer had them? What convinced you? Was it the decade long shell game with the UN weapons inspectors? Was it the 12,000 pages of scrap paper he dumped on the UN's desk in response to a demand for proof that the weapons had been destroyed just before the invasion? Or was it the propaganda flowing from the President's political opponents?</font>[/QUOTE]If you have one firecracker, and you light it, and throw it, and it goes "BANG", do you still have a firecracker?

[High C]

Originally posted by TomF:
For me, it was the fact that UN inspectors found nothing...But they did find something, resistance, lack of cooperation, being locked out of numerous places they wanted to inspect. They endured this game for almost a decade. And when the UN finally demanded documented proof of compliance, they got the infamous 12,000 page scrap paper dump.

If he didn't have those weapons, Hussein sure worked hard to create the impression that he did. And that gives clear lie to the claim that this was a creation of President Bush. It is simply not a logical conclusion.

[High C]

Originally posted by Mrleft8:
...If you have one firecracker, and you light it, and throw it, and it goes "BANG", do you still have a firecracker?No, but if I had thrown it at my neighbor's dog, claimed to have more and threatened to repeat, they'd have every right to kick my butt.

[LeeG]

that people are still using the term "WMD" is a testimony to the effectiveness of propoganda. A nuke is a wmd,,if chemical weapons dropped from airplanes in 1988 that cause thousands of deaths are wmd then so is an integrated bombing of cluster munitions with phosphorous and napalm sprinkled in for effect that also kills thousands.

[TomF]

Hi C, certainly there was lots of resistance. No question.

For me, the strongest validating info is that no WMDs have been used by the insurgency. They've used as many horrific tactics as they can imagine ... you really think that they wouldn't use gas, or biological agents etc. if they had them at their disposal?

[LeeG]

Originally posted by High C:
[QUOTE] If he didn't have those weapons, Hussein sure worked hard to create the impression that he did. And that gives clear lie to the claim that this was a creation of President Bush. It is simply not a logical conclusion.HighC,,Hussein wasn't alone in working hard,,good propoganda requires some element of truth. GW didn't create the overhyping of Iraqs WMD programs,,GW didn't know squat about much beyond Texas while the good folks at AEI (GWs neo-con mentors) were finding common cause with Ahmed Chalabi to over-hyping Iraqs threat.

[High C]

Originally posted by TomF:
Hi C, certainly there was lots of resistance. No question.

For me, the strongest validating info is that no WMDs have been used by the insurgency....But that in no way indicates that the president made up the threat. The threat was universally believed, (save for a handful of American propoganda sponges) and furthered by Hussein's own actions. Whether he destroyed them, moved them to Syria, or ate them for breakfast simply doesn't matter. He begged for trouble, and he got it. There was nothing dishonest about responding to that threat, whether proven to be real or not.

[ 07-08-2005, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: High C ]

[LeeG]

High, when you use a word like WMD does it matter whether it's an intention, a piece of paper, 98tons of plutonium, a weed-whacker powered UAV, aluminum tubes for unguided rockets, or an actual weapon? So far you've enjoyed using it for nearly anything. Which is a very useful rhetorical tool.
So you could say "the threat was universally believed" and many folks would agree,,as long as the specifics of the threat aren't defined.
If he could lie about the specificity of the threat what else could he lie about..a blow job?

[High C]

Get off it, Lee. You gotta call 'em something. This whole point, one you've been trying to make for over a year, goes nowhere. It's nothing. Fuggit about it.

WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD

[John of Phoenix]

ON TO PYONYANG!

DEATH TO THE GREAT YELLOW HORDE!!

NUKE 'EM TILL THEY GLOW!!!

[Chris Coose]

John,
I admire how you work through your PTSD :D

[John of Phoenix]

Yeah, all without meds. :D

[Chris Coose]

That's the best part.
I love it when people know what's up and adjust or compensate for their mental misfortunes.

TURN THE SAND TO GLASS !!!!!!!!!!

[LeeG]

High, so basically it doesn't matter what the reality is,,if your authority figure says "He's got 'em" that's good enough for you. Your recollection of gov't authority figures speaking the truth sure is selective.

If someone was pointing a gun at me it would matter whether it was a .177 pellet gun or a .38. But for you they're all the same. If it's a threat, it's a threat.

You are absolutely unwilling to consider that what a politician says for one audience is different than what an expert says in another setting and if there's a discrepancy,,you'll go with the politician. A US president will get more agreement from his fellow americans than a weapons inspector speaking with a funny accent about possibilities. You don't want possibilities,,GW Cheney doesn't bother with indeterminate realities,,,"he got WMD, we know where they are"

and here you are saying "Whether he destroyed them, moved them to Syria, or ate them for breakfast simply doesn't matter. "

So they exist,,or they don't exist,,,it doesn't matter. So what does matter?

[LeeG]

ANOTHER POT OF COFFEE!!!

[High C]

Originally posted by LeeG:
High, so basically it doesn't matter what the reality is,,if your authority figure says "He's got 'em" that's good enough for you....Pay attention, Lee, this is the central thing here, and you've missed it.

It wasn't just "my authority figure". It was all authority figures, all over the world, including the ones you respect.

'nuff said about that elephant in the corner.

[John of Phoenix]

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.
A year later you got shock and awe. Decision to go to war having been made LOOONG ago.

When you create your own reality, you don't need no stinking facts. Keep the "faith" baby.

[LeeG]

er,,high,,the authority figures in weapons inspections didn't say "he gots 'em we know where they are"..but Bolton was working to get rid of Al Baridai and WAS successful in getting rid of Bustani.

[John of Phoenix]

It wasn't just "my authority figure". It was all authority figures, all over the world, including the ones you respect.
ALL? What about all those Euro Weenies who stayed home? Talk about creating your own reality!

[ 07-08-2005, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: John Teetsel ]

[LeeG]

High,,authority figures in bioweapons in the intelligence services (CIA,INR,etc) told Bolton his speech couldn't say Cuba had a bio-weapons program that was giving weapons to terrorists. Guess what he did? He tried to get those authorities fired.
Richard Clarke the resident authority on counterterrorism told Rice,GW that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11,,guess what? He was told by GW to find something and Cheney enjoyed AEI alumnis work conjuring up links.
Golly, I guess there's a difference between political authority and authority based on knowledge of a topic.
Makes things simpler if physical reality can be disregarded for political reasons.
It doesn't matter if he shipped them to Syria, ate them,,or they never existed at all.
Finally you've come around the Ahmed Chalabis position. The end justifies the means.

[High C]

Originally posted by John Teetsel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It wasn't just "my authority figure". It was all authority figures, all over the world, including the ones you respect.
ALL? What about all those Euro Weenies who stayed home? Talk about creating your own reality!</font>[/QUOTE]Check out the records of those Euro weenies with regards to their votes on the numerous UN resolutions which demanded Hussein come clean on WMDs. Check out the intelligence from those nations. Just because some of them were happy to let others do the dirty work doesn't mean they disagreed with the intelligence.

[LeeG]

which authorities are you speaking about? Those requesting inspections or those doing the inspecting or those using the inspections to maneuver a UN support of invasion?

ahhh,reality, she flexes her muscles.

[George.]

Originally posted by High C:
Check out the intelligence from those nations. Good point. Did any non-US intelligent agencies independently conclude that Saddam had WMD? Or did they base their speculations that he might on info provided by US sources?

How about it? Any independent confirmation? Or is the whole thing ultimately traceable back to Chalabi and Curveball?

[LeeG]

C223,,sounds like meaning of words is important. Love that WMD, it's definate,,and yet so versatile. "is" takes $40 million to define "WMD" will take at least $500 Billion.

[John of Phoenix]

Just because some of them were happy to let others do the dirty work doesn't mean they disagreed with the intelligence. You make it sound so casual. “Well, invade if you must (wink, wink), but we’ll have none of it.” Remember “Freedom Fries”?

They didn't buy Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rice. Hell, they didn't even buy Powell and they LIKED him.

They were vehemently opposed to invasion and never bought any of that crap from Washington .

[Billy Bones]

CAreful, John. They were vehemently opposed to the war because Iraq was a SIGNIFICANT trading partner for them. That commerce, including considerable illegal commerce, would dry up when Saddam went away.

If foreign policy were a bridge club, then our behavior would be atrocious, as many of you suggest. But it isn't.

[LeeG]

Billy, it's also because those countries would bear the first wave of jihadism spreading out from Iraq after an invasion. It's just possible that people on the other side of the Atlantic have more generation to generation experience dealing with war and terrorism within their borders than we do so when WE charge into Iraq saying we're getting WMD (on indefinate intel) and a collection of sequential reasons maybe they were less than enthusiastic that we knew what we were doing.

Spain was a part of the COW and it imports 100% of it's oil, I don't recall the sources of it's imports but I don't think you can reduce disagreement with invasion according to income loss/gain.

[George.]

Originally posted by Billy Bones:
That commerce, including considerable illegal commerce, would dry up when Saddam went away.

A lot of that illegal commerce turned out to be with US companies...

[Chris Coose]

Originally posted by Billy Bones:
If foreign policy were a bridge club, then our behavior would be atrocious, as many of you suggest. But it isn't.You got that right. This ain't no disco either. Calling foreign policy run by dubbya and his outlaw puppet masters "atrocious" is gratuitous.

[High C]

Originally posted by George.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Billy Bones:
That commerce, including considerable illegal commerce, would dry up when Saddam went away.

A lot of that illegal commerce turned out to be with US companies...</font>[/QUOTE]And despite that, the US, unlike Teetsel's "Euro-weenies", did the right thing and took action. Much of Europe is now known to have behaved in corrupt fashion, seeking to protect its illegal interests by interfering with the war.

Now, of course, they play the game that Bush fabricated his own justification. Their
own corruption allows them no other option. Nothing short of confession, that is.

[George.]

So, did any "Euro[weeny" intelligent agencies independently conclude that Saddam had WMD?

Otherwise, one may independently conclude that it was because they didn't believe Bush, and not because of commercial interests, that they didn't "do the right thing" - which turned out to be the wrong thing, done the wrong way, at the wrong time.

[High C]

George, all this started long before Bush was President. He didn't, he couldn't have, as Governor of Texas, make this up. Just have a look at the official positions of the nations of your choice. Look at their votes on the 17 UN resoultions concerning Iraq and WMDs. Their respective intelligence is reflected in those votes, much of which was gathered and considered years before GW Bush came along.

The timeline doesn't lie.

[Meerkat]

Nope, the timeline does not lie: most of the crappy "made to order" intelligence, that the US "generously" shared with it's allies and anyone else they were trying to persuade, got it's start during the reign of Bush I.

[High C]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Nope, the timeline does not lie: most of the crappy "made to order" intelligence, that the US "generously" shared with it's allies and anyone else they were trying to persuade, got it's start during the reign of Bush I.And his successor, President Clinton, has often spoken as forcefully as anyone that the intel was correct. He acted on it himself, with military force, several times. We've all seen the quotes from him, from John Kerry, on and all.

This is all nonsense. People don't forget what happened. The timeline doesn't lie.

Maybe the Dems should try offering a realistic agenda for the next election. This junk ain't sticking. :rolleyes:

[ 07-08-2005, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

[Meerkat]

The way your team is running things, the dems won't have to do anything to win the next election except make sure their candidate has a pulse. tongue.gif

[Billy Bones]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
The way your team is running things, the dems won't have to do anything to win the next election except make sure their candidate has a pulse. tongue.gif ...Which, it should be noted, they have been unable to do for two elections.

[John of Phoenix]

Oh, Howard will take of the pulse problem. :D

[Donn]

"...Which, it should be noted, they have been unable to do for two elections."

Unable to field a candidate with a pulse, that is.

[Meerkat]

Bush will help too: by the time he's done, there's not going to be a republican with a pulse left - even if he/she IS still breathing! tongue.gif

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Billy Bones:
CAreful, John. They were vehemently opposed to the war because Iraq was a SIGNIFICANT trading partner for them. That commerce, including considerable illegal commerce, would dry up when Saddam went away. So it's possible that Europe didn't want an invasion because of the oil trade....

...but it's impossible that Bush wanted an invasion because of the oil trade?

If France was happy to trade with Iraq, we were just as unhappy to not trade with them.

And don't give me any boo hoo hoo about how France's trade was illegal. We invaded the darn country. That's just as illegal.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by High C:
And his successor, President Clinton, has often spoken as forcefully as anyone that the intel was correct. He acted on it himself, with military force, several times. We've all seen the quotes from him, from John Kerry, on and all.High C, I think it's absolutely charming to hear you speak so reverentially of Clinton and Kerry....

...except of course, we all know you hate them and would normally bend over backwards to contradict anything they said.

I think your new-found fondness for them is really more a search for a scapegoat than an honest policy debate.

Besides, whatever Clinton may have done with the intel, he didn't launch a poorly planned, unpopular and unsuccessful invasion.

Bush did this. Funny thing about being the twice-elected president: you might actually be held responsible for the things you do.

Oh, and by the way -- Clinton's impeachment was rejected by the Senate and the leaders in the House of Representatives who launched it were culled by their own party.

[ 07-08-2005, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by C223:
Actually the invasion was a smashing success. It is the lack of post invasion planning that is biting our behinds.Actually, if we'd left as soon as the invasion was over, Saddam would have come out of hiding and we would have accomplished little. Not that we have accomplished much anyway.

[ 07-08-2005, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]