Well..That's why I sing, or more accurately, play the blues. People seem to forget that 9-11 hadn't happened in 2000. The world changed that day and I am glad it did. Not glad for teh attacks on America, but that Bush had the courage to take the fight to them. I fear that Gore would have turned it into a UN santioned, courtroom drama hoping for good poll numbers.

Mission WAS accomplished in the fact that we went to war with Iraq. That mean we went to destroy their ability and will to make war. We did that. Their military was decimated, it's leaders killed or captured and it's dictators deposed, killed and captured. The war we are fighgting there now is the war on terror. We are not fighting Iraq. The vast majority of the insurgents aren't even Iraqi's. I don't care if they want to listen to my phones..I have nothing to hide. If someone gets caught up in some domestic or unrelated criminal activity(which has yet to happen)as a result..well..don't do the crime if you can't do the time. I don't care if our enemies are tortured. You seem more concerned about the pieces of s*it than you are about what they do to our people. Let them suffer before heading off to their seventy-two mansions, bed and virgins. 

Clinton didn't misrepresent anything.. He perjured himself before a grand jury and Congress and lied to the Americans.Hmm..seems a recent president is being vivified by the left for teh very same thing..Lying is lying.. To be honest, I never gave a rats ass about the whole thing anyway. Had that been his highest crime, I would have high fived him. .Clinton DID spy on Americans. Aurora was his baby. I didn't care about that either. My drug dealing days were over by then and I had nothing to hide. I never hated Bill Clinton. He was kind of a non-event. NAFTA was Bush 41s baby and had he thought he'd have lost to Clinton, would have pushed it through in his first term. Clinton did manage to prove to the world that we lacked the resolve to defend our citizens here and abroad with his abandonoing the people in Somalia and every other battle we had to fight. He lack character and honesty. Hr may have talked to the people, but who could trust him That's OK..He was a politician. 

Damn In n Out.

Nancy, that's nonsense.  Clinton was a consummate politician, a skill this country values far above leadership.  Despite that, his presidency will probably rank in the top third historically in terms of accomplishments.  Bush, by comparison, will come in dead last.  Clinton was acquitted because he was, in fact, innocent of the charges.
.
I prefer a politician who listens to what the people want--polls--in contrast to one like the recumbent, who deliberately ignores the two-thirds of Americans who want us out of Iraq and embryonic stem-cell research funding.
.
I don't want to see Bush impeached.  I want a Democratic majority in both houses and *CHENEY* impeached.  Bush isn't important enough to bother with.
.
Mark, I don't see public protest as a good way to change political strategy.  I wish the Democrats had their act together better, but the way to accomplish *THAT* is within the system.   We've started the process in Connecticut.
.
A good case can be made that President Gore would have *PREVENTED* 9/11.  Think about where this country might be today if our most important worry were global warming.  Come to think of it, our most important worry today *IS* global warming.

Random wrote, "I don't see public protest as a good way to change political strategy."

You have no idea how encouraging it is to hear a (presumably) progressive Democrat say that.

As for whether Democrats have a plan, they unfurled one recently.  It even has a name.  But I don't blame Mark for not being aware of this.

With almost no real liberal voices in the media, the Democrats' plan didn't get much news coverage.

You'll definitely have to stop off here for a round or two on your next drive to Klamath Falls, Steve. Bring me an In N Out burger too...

.

Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, nobody will be happy with the next guy either. And so it goes.

That's a good point, Dusty, but my concern is it has been overused by the Left.  Overuse of a tactic lessens the impact of the protest -- and if it's always the same people protesting the same thing, it gets old and is no longer effective.

Protest, in my opinion, is most effective as a response to the threat or actual carrying out of a action or law that the protesters feel is abominable.  Say, for example, if Congress succeeded in passing the misnomer "protect marriage" amendment to the Constitution, a mass protest of clearly outraged and militant citizens is powerful.  It warns lawmakers, "if you do this, twenty million pissed off people are going to make your life hell."
.
On the other hand, protesting on and on about the Iraq war is almost pointless.  To most passers-by, it's just background noise by outdated Sixties radicals.  I give the protesters on Stockdale and California a friendly, supportive honk (even though I think they are unrealistically simplistic and idealistic), but to most people, they appears as mere malcontents ineffectually waving signs.
.
Protest is effective when used judiciously.  In my opinion, the Left doesn't use it judiciously.