"Good grief, it is sooooo easy to be a Monday morning quarterback."

But you prefer being a sheep over being a quarterback, eh, KS?

"Has there been an indictment yet for W?"

With Roberts burying any evidence that came before his committee, he was pretty safe.

We'll see if the new committee chair let's a little light peak through.

"Your worst nightmare would be that things went well in Iraq."

Actually, no, that's what everyone was hoping for. But Bush has screwed it up pretty royally.

Is that why the media and liberals focus on body count versus anything positive happening in Iraq? Do you ever see stories about or here liberals talk about anything that has positively happened in Iraq? I've had four friends and three family members who will tell you that all of that is ignored even when they give interviews to local media.

"Clinton lied about a hell of a lot more that just adultery, "

Sources, please.

And you say I have blinders on. I cannot recall any criticism of Clinton on the LJW site by libs except for his adultery and that was a "personal matter." He had the most indicted and convicted administration ever. What is going to be your response if the British report shows that Clinton Administration was spying on Americans as has been reported. Guess the Princess must have been a terrorist to that administration.

"Bush has been hated by many of you because he WON the election in 2000 "

Actually, the 2000 election was decided by the United States Supreme Court. This is fact, and can easily be verified.

But Bush WON regardless, that is how the system works. Move on.

"have looked for every opportunity to bash him for the last 6 years. "

He's given us ample opportunity. He's the "decider".

But I thought libs were the kind, accepting, warm fuzzy, tree hugging types. Aren't the conservatives Republicans supposed to be mean angry ones?

Are those blinders restricting the blood flow to your head?

Nope if you've read some of my posts before and I guess I will state it again ....... Bush deserves criticism for some decisions he has made ...... like some decisions in Iraq, not holding down spending, illegal immagration, not focusing enough on domestic issues, etc. But many don't also give him any credit.

never throw stones if you live in a glass house!!!!!!

Do unto others

the list goes on and on

logicsound04 That's because no matter how much you focus on the positives in Iraq, the negatives (i.e., U.S. soldiers dying for a worthless cause) still exist.

In fact, I find it disrespectful to our soldiers that you would prefer to cover up the suffering they must go through as they perform their service in favor of more PR-approved news, like Saddam's statue coming down and a "mission accomplished" sign on a battleship.

Maybe you ought to read closer next time. How dare you freaking challenge my respect for the men and women of our armed services. These men and women do suffer and die for the very freedoms we all enjoy in this country. But I find it very disrespectful to just focus on their injuries and deaths without every giving credit to them for creating more freedom for the people of Iraq. Ignoring their work and sacrafices that they have made for making the lives of Iraqi's better is the real disrespect.

You might ask some of them who have returned from Iraq if they believe they were fighting for a "worthless cause".

Posted by just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) on December 12, 2006 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I doubt that they find much comfort or support from your fantasy world, BigDog.

And I am sure they find lots of comfort in your fatalistic views, Bozo.

Big Dog and Right Thinker: If Jesus came back today, he'd spit on you. And then you'd blame Clinton somehow. You people make me sick!

You blame people for criticizing Bush, saying we should trust our leaders, then retroactively criticize Clinton. You use Clinton to attempt to illustrate hypocrisy in liberals while only revealing your own glaring inconsistency. You cling to the myths fed to you by Bush while declaring everything out of Clinton's mouth a lie. You maintain that Iraq is a good situation without any consideration of the people who actually live there who would disagree with you despite your stubborn self-righteousness and inconsideration. You are apologists for a system altered from the ideals of our fore fathers to keep you occupied with nationalism, patriotism, jingoism, and blinding alliegance. You are a tool. For the ignorance of the masses. You are an automaton. And I think that is sad, that you waste so much breath defending a system that keeps you down and right where you are.

Cuz that's exacly what Jesus did, he laid down and acquiesced to the decaying paradigm. Actually he probably wouldn't spit on you, he'd simply turn away and say he doens't know you.

"Has there been an indictment yet for W?"

No, due to massive abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

There has also been NO indictment issued of Osama bin Laden for the crimes committed on September 11, 2001...rt are waiting for that to happen before you decide his guilt?

"you need to separate crime from war. We invaded a country and went to war, not court."

I'm not suprised you missed the point rt, but I have faith the rest of the community did not. We supposively went to war because of "the crime", therefore it is not seperated from the war---- if you do seperate it, why did you go to war?

Posted by ryanjasondesch (anonymous) on December 12, 2006 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Big Dog and Right Thinker: If Jesus came back today, he'd spit on you.

You must go to Phelps' church.

Exactly how much intellectual energy do the wingnuts on here expend trying to discover new ways to defend their criminally incompetent political 'savior' and/or switch the focus and blame for everything to Clinton?

P A T H E T I C

"The role of the Bush family in the disappearance of bozo's lunch money one day when he was in the third grade has never been fully explored."

As I said earlier to poon, it's getting almost desperately impossible to find ways to defend Bush and his lackeys, isn't it, IC?

I have another question-- exactly what do you get for being a BushCo lackey?

Hate to tell all of the right wingers this, but an earlier comment is untrue. Ronald Reagan had the most indicted and convicted administration ever, not William Jefferson Clinton.

Maybe if you occasionally got the facts correct, you would have some credibility.

Moderationman, you're correct, but your inate moderation prevents you from mentioning that the Clinton administration was the most hounded by the press and the right-wing spin machine, and the most investigated in the nation's history, and the end result of all that criminal investigation was just a couple of felony indictments. That marks a sharp contrast to the Reagan admin, with the most criminal indictments ever, although one of the least investigated, and one of the most treasonous and felonious bunch of miscreants ever pardoned by the next president. With that stroke of the pen, the American traitors who kept US hostages imprisoned in Iran (until their release could be used as a part of the new president's inaugural ball) got off scot-free, so they could go on to their new careers on talk radio and Fox News. If it weren't for that, there'd have been a WHOLE lot more folks headed for prison in that bunch.

Oh, and one of the arguing points many posts above this one is wrong. As I've mentioned before, and many Bush lovers seem to forget, the 2000 Florida count, when finally verified by independent auditors, clearly reflects the will of the American people and shows Gore won Florida by several thousand votes. It's true, folks. You can look it up. So try to remember this simple fact for future arguments; it's not that hard:

"Bush was NOT elected president in 2000."

And remember when the 2004 election became a similar tie based on the outcome in Ohio? And congress' own GAO certified the Ohio election results as "unknowable" because of massive fraud and lack of paper trail? Now, Bushlovers, try to take in one more simple fact; it's official:

"Bush was NOT elected president in 2004."

OK, now we're ready to hear some of your comments and arguments, that are more, you know, fact based....

This article says independent audit had Bush winning but what do I know..... probably not factual though ..... haha

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/22/160828.shtml

BigDog wants my sources. Look it up yourself, man. My sources were the daily newspapers on the day the news occurred.

I read the final results of the independent audit of the Florida ballots in the Journal-World. I believe it was an AP story, because AP had tagged it with a misleading headline that made it sound as though the audit showed Bush had won, and LJW slapped it up that way. The article itself clearly stated otherwise. Bush would have won if Gore got his requested Dade-county-only recount. That's probably the bull story NewsMax features, without mentioning that a recount of ALL votes put Gore way ahead.

The story about the GAO's investigation of the Ohio vote after the 2004 election pointed out many obvious crimes, like counting the votes in secret without the press present, and says with the missing, altered and damaged paper tapes logging electronic votes, there's no way the actual results can ever be known. Of course, as in Florida, virtually all "mistakes" favored Bush. This, I believe, was an AP story too, because I saw it in several papers.

As for the actual dates and issues, look it up. You can do it just as easily as I can.