[QUOTE=dcrockett357;251727]You don't realy think that they pay attention to history or the will of the citizens do you?
Unless most generals disagree he will maintain his course.
War then and now are very different. Sorry to disagree  here.
It did not matter if they thought the buildings would fall. they were trying to send a message.
Although I am a liberal I don't think we have totaly cornered the market on truth.
Yes the republicans are spiritualy and moral challenged.That is why there are more liberals at a spiritual site.
Peace Dave[/QUOTE]

Both Democrats and Republicans are morally and spiritually challenged. 

Good point on the General's but truth is that they, not Bush, are the ones that mismanaged the action in Iraq and then sought an excuse by crying about Rumsfield.  Does it ever enter the mind of the liberal crowd that no General will ever get to that level because he/she is afraid of anything?  The military action in Iraq was mismanaged at the start and after taking down Hussein, a political miscalculation of epic level's was done.

[QUOTE=claret1995;251801]Tossing everything aside

This thread was "IMPEACHABLE" as usual the answer is yes and no.

The house could impeach,like a district attorney could indict a ham sammy,the house could impeach a ham sammy but truning impeachment over to the senate for trial is a BRAND NEW BALLGAME.

I consider it this way ,the democrat house would like nothing better than ti Impeach a repub POTUS. Pelosi however does not want egg on face having impeachment tossed out by sitting judge for lack of evidence( this is a very good possibility)

Also house dem leaders KNOW that they are probably going to end up on the defense witness list and here it becomes not only egg but fried egg. With each impeachment charge that falls by the wayside another round of fried eggs is tossed. In the end all charges are in the dustbin of history and the house dems would have no explanation to wasting time and money for a NO BILL IMPEACHMENT[/QUOTE]

Good point.  When Clinton was impeached and he should have been impeached, he should never been on trial in the Senate.  A censure from an impeachment was enough since he did LIE under oath and LIED to a national audience on August 7, 1998, and does have his Arkansas law license REVOKED.  However, removing a duly elected President, barring evidence of treason or high crimes like murder, is a great danger to a Constitutional republic like we have in America.  The obsession with Clinton that got out of control led to him failing to act as Commander-in-Chief against terrorism and the Congress being so blind to the threat on the horizon that every last one of them should have been voted out of office in 2002.  The Clinton Presidency and the mess that both him and the Congress got into set the stage for America to be distracted from the threats that were rising against it.  We have witnessed it all over with Bush and the Bush-haters in America.  It is IMPERATIVE that this election allow for a candidate to be put into office that will demonstrate bonafide statesmanship and that Congress do the same.  Pelosi and her fascination with being the first "woman Speaker," has allowed her to blow the chance of a lifetime to become a true leader and statesman in political affairs.  So, come this time next January, let us hope that the 44th President and 111th Congress can get their act together and manage the federal government in a much better way than we, as a nation, have suffered through both Bush and the Congress.

[QUOTE=rabello;251965]Ok, what's the definition of "success in Iraq?"

Purple thumbs and a peaceful cemetery where parents can visit their dead children and thank them for dying in the cause of "freedom"?[/QUOTE]

Success in Iraq is a stable society that functions on it own.  It amazes me that liberals will never scream for troops to be out of Germany and Japan, 60 plus years after WWII, or S Korea, 50 plus years after that conflict, but will scream about Iraq.  Success in both of those examples have left American troops there so as to build up those societies and let them stand on their own.  The fact that success has not been instantly done is a big part of this conflicting debate about Iraq as well as many federal politcians whooping up the liberal crowd in America about it.  Now that a plan is in place and working, why would anyone shortchange it?

[QUOTE=rabello;251965]Ok, what's the definition of "success in Iraq?"[/QUOTE]

To paraphrase a famous poem,

"In Iraqi fields the winds do blow
Amid the crosses row on row.

[QUOTE=JosephBaileyOne;252050]I don't think anywhere in Iraq there will be "crosses,  row upon row."[/QUOTE]

Well you are correct about the first three words of that sentence