What a rube. Bush has wrecked the American Military Machine. If a real military threat arose at this point, (as opposed to the pathetic little gang of wackos that took out the towers that Bush has destroyed our army trying to fight,) America would be in deep trouble. Bush has used up everything the army had to offer, both in terms of manpower and materiel. But what do you expect when you put a full-fledged FOXNews/RushLimbaugh brand of extremist in office. The freakshow wingnuts on the far right fringe are all chickenhawks who never learned to fight. Good thing they've been exposed as frauds. Americans are turning away from your weird little cult in droves. You're down to around 25% and dropping fast. By the time Bush gets done you'll be the most hated group in the land. Ineptitude and stupidity have a way of exposing themselves.

It's a waste of time to argue with these weak-bladdered little keyboard warriors. They live in a wonderland of dreams where up is down and dark is light. The new CIA docs show exactly the opposite of what this dipshit is saying, and they confirm everything Richard Clark said about what was really going on inside the anti-terror community. Clinton gave them full access to all they asked for in the fight with Osama, but as soon as Bush took over he pulled the plug on everything that was being done. Tenet went out of his way to save his own ass and did whatever Bush asked him to do, even naming the CIA complex after Gw's daddy. But whenever Clarke asked for something in the fight with terrorists Bush said "NO". That is what the new report says. These dimbulbs just make it up as they go. They are weak willed little men who play army with their computers. In the real world they'd run like chickens from a fight. If it wasn't already there I'd meet up with "titus" and shove his head up his ass for him. Then I'd turn him over my knee and spank his flabby white butt.

These idiots do the same thing with this new CIA release that they do with everything else--say the exact opposite of what reality shows. We're winning the war in Iraq and Bush isn't destroying the world. Whatever. Have fun playing Roman war hero games on your computer Tight-One Pullout.

is there a question about whether Americans like the way the dems are carrying out the investigation? Not just whether there should be investigations?

Titus, you probably shouldn't have linked to the Newsweek article. It shows exactly where you've lied in your claims. For example:

Sorry, but Clinton in fact did nothing about al-Qaida

Curiously enough, the article says something different: "Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal force to capture, not kill, bin Laden."

Now, while "capture, not kill" might not have been ideal, it's that much more than Bush did prior to 9/11, isn't it? (Apart from fishing, of course.)

Really, the most damning aspect of the report is focused on Tenet (to whom Bush gave the Medal of Honor) and Hayden (who is Bush's Director of the CIA). Based on that article, I don't see that 9/11 was Clinton's fault, nor do I see that Bush has managed to glean any wisdom from the failings that took place during the Clinton years. Can you?

Like someone with Tourette's Syndrome, the paranoiacs just can't keep their paranoid fantasies from popping out of their mouths (or keyboards, as it were). Yeah, it's all those Jews and neo-cons who are instigating all this.

Leave the strawmen for the Wizard of Oz, nobody said anything about Jews. Neocons, sure, since they are self-described, and came up with the PNAC position papers, which Bush has followed. Is it so outrageous to connect the dots between major GOP players in the BushCo, the position papers they wrote in the 90s, and the actions they took 10 years later?

And as for "dealing with the threat"? How many attacks have there been since 9/11? How many attacks were there after the first WTC attack in 1993?

Well, we've got 3,700 American troops dead, half a million dead Iraqis, and millions of displaced Iraqis. That is the result of attacks. But as for the lack of attacks since 9/11, that particular attack was an amazing stroke of luck (for the terrorists and for Bush) that won't likely be repeated.

And remember: Bush explicitly stated that we were not just going after the perpetrators of 9/11 but against all terrorists

No, not all terrorists. Just some. That doesn't include anti-Castro terrorists, but does include the leader controlling the world's 2nd largest oil reserves. Interesting, isn't it?

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1364

Name a single freedom you've lost.

Amendment 1: While Congress hasn't specifically passed laws preventing freedom of speech, the executive branch has done extensive work in this regard. "Freedom Zones" and other anti-protest activity.

Amendment 4: The government can now spy on us, search our homes, monitor our communications, without ever having to let us know.

Amendment 5: It used to mean "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." How quaint, eh? The MCA of 2006 eliminated that one.

Yeah, with his super weather-wand, Bush directed Katrina towards New Orleans... Nope, they bear no blame at all.

Again, dispense with the strawmen arguments, they don't help you. Nobody claimed Bush caused Katrina, just that he oversaw the abysmal failure of the relief effort. I didn't say local authorities weren't also to blame. However, FEMA and DHS had primary responsibility for the effort from the moment a state of emergency is declared. Bush's involvement was to appoint a crony, and go play guitar.

So is that why everyone from Ted Kennedy to John Kerry to Hillary Clinton to Bill Clinton to Al Gore were saying that Saddam's WMD were a threat that had to be dealt with?

I won't defend the political posturing of those idiots during the fall of 2002. And that was what it largely was, political posturing. Didn't want to be labeled soft on terrorism in advance of the elections. Really, those congressmen were not shown the same intel as Bush and Cheney were privy to, and therefore were left in a position to take the president's word as to the nature of the threat. With that in mind, many of them voted for use of force, as a means to coerce Saddam to allow inspections (which worked). Most of the statements by the people you specify above, upon voting for the use of force, state specifically that.