Groenhagen: "Contrary to your claim that Iraq was just one small aspect that motivate bin Laden to send Clinton "messages with no words," it made up two-thirds of his case."

Nice try at lawyering the argument, but Bin Laden has consistently given more reasons than those three, and it's a stretch to call Iraq 2/3 of his argument, since the primary objection against troops in Saudi Arabia is their proximity to Mecca, not the reason why they're there. Your point is still weak, as Bin Laden spoke at length about any number of U.S. offenses, including those dating back to cold-war activities in Afghanistan, bombing Sudan pharmaceutical companies, etc. It's not as if the 1997 CNN interview was the only time Bin Laden's words were ever recorded.

It's also funny to see you downplay the importance that Bin Laden ascribed to the Palestinian situation. Iraq was 2/3 of his argument? Really? Try again, gold-star grubber.

Brightstar 2: "I accused you Democrats

of being just as culpable as Bush and not a peep in response.

is this because I am correct?"

Or maybe nobody cares what you have to say?

Brightstar 2: "or is it because you people somehow think you are invulnerable to charges of conspiracy?"

Who are "you people" and why do they insist on mobbing up into a mass just to torment your beautiful mind?

Brightstar 2: "I know what YOU are, but I still need to know exactly how out of control ARROGANT you people are so I begin to protect myself from more of this criminality."

The voices! The voices! They won't stop! They're all talking to you at once!

One Good Reason:

Well I have more than one good reason that Bush should be impeached. But lets deal with a violation of the constitution as a high crime and misdemeanor, he allowed torture to take place. In fact he insisted that is should. That is reason number 1.

Reason number 2, he okayed spying on Americans! Another violation of law, high crime. 3. Went to war based on lies, high crime or misdemeanor? both. 4. He outed a CIA officer. That is a high crime. I came up with four reasons just off the top of my head. If a President can be impeached for lying about a blow job, not a high crime, but a misdemeanor crime, then a President can be impeached for actually violating the constitution.

Groenhagen: "This is a falsehood. The coalition of nations during Operation Iraqi Freedom was larger than the coalition during Operation Desert Storm."

If you're defining "larger" as meaning higher in number, then you win that one -- if only because the Coalition of the Willing is filled with a bunch of podunk countries that we basically bought off so they'd agree to be put on the list (and, as I mentioned earlier, that we refused to take off the list after they asked).

I see you're getting your information from the Heritage "Neocons in training" Foundation now -- a favorite of Wall Street Journal editorial hacks everywhere!

Kimba, your post are filled with nothing but insults and empty rhetoric. Why is it that conservatives who wrap themselves in the mantle of personal responsibility do not want their own leaders held accountable? If you had any principles, you would be advocating for the head of Bush and Cheney on a platter. These people have betrayed our country. Two wars, record deficits, financial meltdowns, incompetent government agencies (FEMA, SEC, etc.) can the record speak any more clearly to you and you like minded kin? Thanks you conservatives for all that you have done. Now it is up to Obama to clean up the mess.

In high school, the pretty crowd led, doing as it pleased, never paying attention to the smarter voices, leading everyone into an abyss.

I gave up on the people in this country a long time ago when I realized most of the posturing people do is false. Nobody has any real knowledge, power, or control, but they sure ACT like it, lying in every utterance they make to everyone.

How is this DIFFERENT from the peacocking Bush showed on that aircraft carrier?

Did anyone stand up and array themselves against the criminality in the government? Of course not. Not in any controlled fashion.

THAT MAKES YOU DOPES CULPABLE, every single one of you.

I am DONE trusting Americans. So quit your bitching that government is somehow doing something wrong. You did not stand up when it counted.

Had Bush chosen to, he could have run tanks in the streets and taken out anyone who did not agree with his regime. And you people would apparently have laughed it off and gone on with your impotent maneuverings.

All the chatter about the minutiae of whether Bush crossed that 't' or dotted that 'i' is LAUGHABLE. In a REAL society where people actually care and are not constantly DRUGGED UP, bush would have been taken out in chains.

You people get the government you deserve. I will LAUGH when things keep getting worse for you people. I am done, you have bankrupted ME and it will take me years to work my way out of it. Now I rejoice in other Americans' misery.

Groenhagen: "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."

What a weak response, and you KNOW it's a weak response, since you surely know that not only did Bush/Cheney made a rhetorical link between Iraq and 9/11 every chance they got, but Cheney also floated a claim that a top Iraqi Defense Minister had met with Al Qaeda during a trip to Europe. But nevermind facts, right? You lost on this point. Sorry, professor wingnut!

JW: "In retrospect, though, it seems clear that he arrived in the White House surrounded by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other twisted neocons who were determined to topple Saddam Hussein given any excuse, or none at all."

==============================================================

"In retrospect...?"

C'mon Joan, you know better.

Jeez--If anyone had taken the time to read the Project for a New American Century's "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century," published before the 2000 election, authored by Wolfowitz, and signed by these very same people (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Libby, et al), one would have readily seen that this group was--before even coming to power--advocating the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam, and the building of permanent U.S. military bases in the aftermath.

The PNAC report was there for the press, the pundits, the talking-heads, and the bloggers to see--in advance. It got virtually no attention--before or after the election. Yet, according to members of the Bush White House, the PNAC's plans for the overthrow of Saddam were discussed at the very first major White House meeting in 2001.

Heck, the PNAC's report was merely an expanded version of this same group's open letter to Clinton in 1998 advocating the same thing. So, in reality, this group's intentions were there for the world to see for several years.

So to say that it is only apparent "in retrospect" that this group of people would employ this particular (and devastingly disastrous) strategy is to willfully ignore the public availability of this document--a veritable blueprint for what the Bush White House would do when it came to power.

Moreover, to say that this published plan was only apparent "in retrospect" is to willfully ignore the media's role in failing to spotlight the PNAC plan when it mattered most--before the election in 2000, and again before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.