Clinton ordered the U.S. military to bomb Iraq to enforce the U.N. no-fly zone rules and mitigate Hussein, who was a “threat.” Clinton ordered the U.S. military to invade Haiti to end the rule of Aristide and restore democracy. Clinton ordered the U.S. military to bomb Serbia to halt the genocide of Croats and Muslims and end the rule of Milosevic. Clinton used the military in this manner in an era of relative peace, when there was no apparent or real threat to the U.S. Moreover, there were not mass protests among the Left when Clinton did this.

9/11 occurs. The country is attacked on its soil and, sadly, thousands of Americans die. President Bush orders the U.S. to invade Afghanistan to end the rule of the Taliban (or essentially destroy the terrorist network) and promote democracy. President Bush then orders the U.S. military to invade Iraq to end Saddam Hussein as a threat, enforce the U.N. rules, promote democracy, and end genocide in Iraq. President Bush used the military in this manner in an era of conflict, in which the country has been attacked by a growing terrorist network.

The rationale for both Presidents’ military actions is the same: enforce the U.N. rules, end tyranncial rule, promote democracy, and end genocide. Where’s the consistency?

My point is the same as Bill Maher’s point was. There is a certain amount of safety in lobbing missles from hundreds of miles away. During Clinton’s “war” with Iraq, we lost one soldier. He was a cook who had a heart attack. George Bush has sent thousands of troops to their death, and what do we have to show for it? Saddam is in custody, and now the civil war is making life much more treacherous for all the people we tried to save. Your analogy between the two actions is akin to me comparing the Korean war to a Korean restaurant on Snelling Avenue.

The closest thing Bush has done to what Clinton did was Afghanistan. We have like 11 troops in there looking for Osama. Remember when he was our target? Apparently the president doesn’t either.

Clinton era intell did not say the same thing as W. does. Please read “See No Evil” by Bob Baer, who is no fan of Clinton and Tony Lake, but actually was in Iraq as a CIA agent during that period.

We always had opportunities to overthrow Saddam without an invasion, but containment was the more sane strategy (versus occupation).

My point is that the invasion was unwise, illegal, and sold to the public with lies about WMDs. It had nothing to do with any global war on terror. It liberated no one.

Are the arrests that you refer to the arrest of “Monotheism and Jihad” operatives linked to the bombings in Egypt? There is a halfway decent article about that group here: http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=265992

Most of the Arab world seems to believe that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a CIA play actor. I actually don’t know, but there is recent criticism that Bush/Rumsfeld prevented operations against his organization before the invasion. We had pretty free ability to move and operate in Northern Iraq before the invasion began. He has been useful for the administration seeking to inflate a link between bin Laden and Iraq, since then. I hope the PR gains are worth the lives lost.

And if you think Bush “lied”, then why did almost every prominent Democrat look at the same Clinton era intell and say the exact same things as Bush? Were all of them lying too?

There is still kidnapping and torture in Iraq.

Mission accomplished? No. Worth the lies and the invasion of sovereign nations? No.

There was a better way to get bin Laden and Co. versus a wholesale invasion of Afghanistan. But invading Afghanistan was also a convienient way to serve big oil.

Is anti-terrorism worthwhile? Yes, if it is effective and doesn’t mean we have to throw away our own hard won freedoms. Was the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq an effective approach to tackling the real threat of international ‘jihadi’ terrorists? No. Was it a criminal enterprise that made money for war profiteers and promised big gains for big oil at the cost of young patriot’s lives? The jury hasn’t been convened yet, because Republicans in congress won’t cooperate with impeachment. So we replace those Congressmen with ones that may not advocate for impeachment, but at least won’ obstruct it. New Congressmen like Tinklenberg.

Oh, then why did your party vote to go to war in Iraq? And why did your party’s President bomb Serbia in the 1990s? And why did your party’s President bomb an aspirin factory in the Sudan? And why did your party’s President declare Saddam Hussein a threat? And why did your party’s President conduct air strikes on Iraq? And…on it goes.

Actually Haliburtons return on investment related to their mideast work is minimal.

And if you think Bush liberated Afghanistan and Iraq to bring revenue to Haliburton, then I don’t think I can debate you intelligently.

Freeing 55 million people from tyranny is a good thing. I have 3 ancestors who fought for the North in the Civil War. They survived and either way I’d say it was worth it. Or would you tolerate slavery in the name of peace?

Would you rather have 2,000 of your friends:

A) Sexually harassed
B) DEAD

To suggest that sexual harassment is equal to thousands of dead soldiers is really pathetic.

Sit back and think about what you just wrote. I agree, sexual harassment is a serious issue, but Haliburton is getting rich just digging the graves for this war.

Slick Willie lied under oath during a sexual harrassment lawsuit. I know someone who was sexually harrassed on the job and didn’t get justice. It’s not the big joke the Democrats think it is. Wait until it happens to someone you know.

Multiple Choice Question #1.

Q: Which would you consider to be a high crime and/or misdemeanor punishible by impeachment?

A) Tapping the phones of political opponents
B) Violating the Tenure of Office Act
C) Consentual Sex
D) Lying to Congress and the nation resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths.

So its not a problem unless there are any resolutions for impeachment introduced by others. Surely no one would do such an unpopular thing to a popular and fearless leader like our dear George W.?

If Clinton was impeached for lying about Monica and a blue dress, maybe its possible that W. and Cheney could be held accountable for their lies and crimes, too?

Again, Tinklenberg is sticking to the safe center, which is probably only a tenable position in the conservative 6th district.

I think MDE is secretly very much in love with Tinklenberg. If MDE could publically be honest and step outside of GOP party discipline, we could get him to admit that he’d choose Tinklenberg over Bachman.

Most sensible GOPers will have to stop worrying about shoring up W’s withering defenses, and start proposing policy that is not based on emotional wedge issues. The GOP base is not going to turn out just to prevent a possible impeachment.