Anonymouse, is there a way you could increase the difficulty level a bit on leveling your points? It's getting a bit dull. Change it from "beginner" to "intermediate," at least!

Our children IS learning?! You are SO eliquant.

While I would love to claim those words as my own, I'm afraid they originated with your dear preznit.

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"—Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

Again, just a little more difficult, just to keep me coming back.

How original...a poll...and just how accurate is the poll...is it 100% accurate? Can you guarantee that?

I can't guarantee it's 100% accurate, no. However, by showing many, many, many other polls that mirror those findings, I can show that there is no real reason to doubt those findings. Unless, of course, it's part of a larger strategy to deny whole wide swaths of reality in attempt to bolster a bankrupt worldview. Sound familiar?

Taking a record surplus and turning it into a record deficit - as I recall, this started BEFORE President Bush got into office...say around 1999.

And as usual, you would be wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/06/budget.surplus.02/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide04.html

Departing from pursuing terrorists to get our military bogged down in a war of choice that has destroyed much hope of any positive outcome in the GWOT - unless you consider the terrorists we are taking out over there, I guess.

As has been exhaustively detailed by our own National Intelligence Estimates, we are creating terrorists much faster than we're taking them out, particular in Iraq. Try and understand, if we create a million terrorists, and take out half a million of them, the result for us is still a net loss.

Turned the justice department into a partisan wing of the GOP - you mean much the way the Democrats did during the 1990s?

Examples?

Oh, you mean how the Clinton justice department successfully blocked any investigations into the Clintons? Or how Clinton fired a bunch of US attorneys simply because they weren't following a purely partisan Democratic agenda?

What's that? Sorry I couldn't hear you? You say, Clinton's justice department never did any of those things? Right. Again, make these a little more difficult. Please??

Destroyed our credibility around the world - And we had some WHEN exactly? Or did we have credibility when we were attacked by terrorist BEFORE 9/11?

Glad you asked. Glenn Greenwald addresses this precise idea in vivid detail.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/06/world_opinion/

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/06/follow_up/

Of course, I fully expect you not to read it, and come back simply with a comment that Greenwald is not credible. Your inability to even look at the points made by Greenwald will clearly highlight your own inability to defend your point of view.

Anyhow, Anonymouse, the time is drawing near for your big date with the underside of your rock. It's only a matter of time before it's wound-licking hour.

How long you continue your humiliation is entirely up to you.

Now what part of that is inconsistant? He used what info was available to him from the CIA, the military, and from other countries! A lie is NOT a lie, if you told the truth and found out later your information was incorrect.

Sorry, that excuse doesn't wash. We've already had plenty of evidence to show that Bush explicitly knew that Saddam had no involvement with Al Qaeda or 9/11, prior to invasion. If your single remaining defense lies with "well, Bush didn't know," I think it's time to re-evaluate.

No, you obviously haven't because you KEEP saying Clinton's impeachment was over a blowjob...it was because he LIED UNDER OATH.

Can you provide a single example of where I said Clinton was impeached because of a blowjob? The republicans went after him for any reason they could find, which included a stained dress, a blowjob, and finally, perjury. Am I going too fast for you?

President Bush has NOT lied under oath...hence he has NOT committed perjury.

Sorry, Anonymouse, that talking point was demolished a few posts ago, when I showed that Bush lied directly to Congress. Do try and keep up.

Ah, but it has NOT been established his actions do not legitimately fall under executive privilege either. Sounds like the Dems have work to do to get that one done.

Unusually correct in this case. Congratulations. So what you're saying is, Bush has the incompetence of the Dems to thank for the fact that he's still in office. In the meantime, legal minds who DO NOT work for Bush have weighed in against Bush's claim.

And Clinton wanted to use executive privilege to keep from having to testify in a court hearing

Correct again, just as Bush wants to use executive privilege so that his administration does not have to continue lying to Congress, as Gonzales did. Just as Clinton did then, Bush is using executive privilege to prevent Congress and the public from finding out something he doesn't want found out. (This is partly academic at this point, since from all the testimony from the attorney scandal, it's pretty clear what Bush is hiding.) Now, while the story Clinton was hiding revolved around a personal issue that had no bearing on his job as president, the story Bush is hiding directly relates to the functioning of the US government, and the standard of justice enjoyed by Americans.

I don't expect you to be able to acknowledge this difference. Your inability to acknowledge severely simple points is why you lose these debates each time.

Plus, corporal, when are you going to start touting your military background? Isn't it about time for that?