"Second, when you say "forged documents," do you even know what is being referred to? I am not talking about the forged Italian documents regarding yellowcake from Niger. I am talking about THIS:

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1008766.html"

That's an odd claim, moonbat, since none of the justifications the Bush administration used prior to the invasion included the claim that Saddam was complicit in 9/11.

In "Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire," historian Niall Ferguson outlined the Bush administration’s justifications for invading Iraq:

1. Iraq had consistently failed to comply with UNSC resolutions and might—no one could of course be sure, precisely because of Iraqi noncooperation—have retained or recovered the capability to use or to export chemical or biological weapons.

2. Saddam was a bloody tyrant who had committed crimes against hu-manity, if not outright genocide.

3. The overthrow of Saddam might help to break the gridlock of the Middle East peace process by sending an unequivocal signal of hos-tility to any regime that defied the United States—pour encourager les autres, as much as to get rid of Saddam himself.

4. Creating a democratic Iraq might also begin a wholesale “transfor-mation of the Middle East” (in the words of Condoleezza Rice), with Iraq once again setting an example for the other Arab states.

5. Controlling Iraq might create alternative bases for U.S. troops in the Middle East, allowing them to leave Saudi Arabia (and thereby meeting at least one of the radical Islamists’ demands.)

There was no claim that Saddam was complicit in 9/11.

He was unprepared for war, et al, but made up for it in spades by being WELL PREPARED to rob the treasury and hand out all the goodies to his fat-cat buddies.

However, in spite of all of that, I cannot think of ONE outstandingly good reason why he should be impeached.

(Though I can think of several hundred reasons why he and his cronies should be held without counsel, tossed into Gitmo, and waterboarded daily for life)

"Again, what is your point in continually bringing up Clinton? How does Clinton's stance in 2000 have any bearing on what actions Bush decided to take in 2003? Or on the judgment of Bush's success in the undertaking?"

"Oswald Garrison Villard, a political journalist of the old school, who spent half a century crusading for standards of probity in public administration, once declared that he had never ceased to mar-vel at the shortness of the public’s memory, at the rapidity with which it forgets episodes of scandal and incompetence. It sometimes appeared to him of little use to attack a party for its unethi-cal conduct, for the voters would have no recollection of it. The glee with which the epithet ‘ancient history’ is applied to what is out of sight is of course a part of this barbarous attitude. The man of culture finds the whole past relevant; the bourgeois and the barbarian find relevant only what has some pressing connection with their appetite." - Richard Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences

Actually, the comments I linked to were made in January 2001, not 2000. If Albright and Holbrooke were not lying then when they said Saddam had WMD and, thus, was a clear and present danger at all times, please tell us at what point during the 26 months between January 2001 and March 2003 Saddam got rid of his WMD.

verycold: "Keep in mind that our new Sec of State, Hillary Clinton, lied with passion about being attacked in Bosnia knowing full well that others would be able to tell a different story. She lied. She meant to and she did and yet now she will be expected to always tell the truth with regards to foreign policy negotiations. She never said she actually embellished the story to make her look good, but instead just deflected her guilt knowing the press would shortly give it up."

Even if you're right about Hillary Clinton lying, I fail to see what the embellishment of an individual experience has to do with Bush lying to start war.

I also fail to see what the point is in even bringing up Hillary in the context of this comments section. Bush has to own his failure. You're doing the same thing Bush is -- trying to find someone, anyone, else to blame.

"Bush didn't fail.....a whole bunch of people failed!"

You conveniently forget that Bush was elected to be the leader, or in his words, "the decider."

If a bunch of low-level idiots believe the WMD lies they're told, that doesn't get the liar off the hook. It just makes him even less of a good leader. Instead of lying because he could get away with it, Bush could have tried to make a good decision. But we all know he did what his gaggle of corrupt advisers told him was best. The truth is that Bush has always been insanely disengaged from the details of his own decision-making. He just wanted to kick ass, and he trusted that he could follow in his father's footsteps. The difference was that his father had brains enough to get in, do the damage necessary, and then get out.

verycold: "You can hammer Bush all you want - he deserves it, but I will guarantee you that the lies, omissions, refusal to own mistakes will continue into this administration because the media and the people of this country accept despicable behavior when it comes to our elected officials."

Your guarantee is empty. There are very stark differences between Bush and Obama. Just because the populace is under-informed and gullible doesn't guarantee automatic corruption and manipulation from the top. No, really.

I need to help support you folks, but I'll be back later today to see what other nonsense you post here.

I wish Gibson had shown him strutting like a peacock on the warship with the bold banner "Mission Accomplished;" and simply asked him the question, "If the failure of finding wmd was your biggest regret, why were you in a swaggering victory mood, when you knew then that we have found no wmd?"

Such is the utter nonsense we have been treated to for the past 8 years that some of us are not surprised that he can spew such nonsense and get away with it.