If you don't care, then why waste your time posting that I'm "simply an insulated, tenured academic?" You care enough to be actively, stupidly wrong, but not to get the facts and be right? Uh, okay. Welcome to that 60%.
If you mean, forcing the Gospel of the ********ing Obvious down the throats of the unwashed heathen, then yes, much work remains to be done. Even if the DSM didn't prove that Iraq's WMD capabilities were known to be less than that of Libya (I mean, Libya, for Pete's sake), then we have the long, long series of lies about Saddam's nuclear capabilities, and his connection to 9/11 - lies that Bush is still repeating as of this week. Most of the "We can't prove Bush didn't lie" theory rests on the possibility that he was simply reading his speeches fo-net-ick-ly, with his drug-addled brain unable to comprehend the meanings of the sentences he was spitting out. Since he himself, when not chasing off the DT's, would strenuously deny such a thing, then we're back where we started - with the President of the United States making a long series of speeches from 2002 to Tuesday, much of which he knew at the time to be false, and most of which can be proven false. It's adorable to see a conservative movement whose delicate sensibilities were so shattered by Bill Clinton's sex life regain their faith to such a degree that mere bloodstained hands aren't enough to shake their determination, but that doesn't mean Bush told the truth any more than similarly strongly held beliefs mean that the dinosaurs missed Noah's Ark.
Have you ever read the Congressional Record? It's already a waste of tax dollars. BigSoccer posts would actually be an improvement over a lot of the stuff in there.
Can't say I really feel like sifting through 323 pages of past threads. Anyone who was around back then knows this to be true. If Bush deliberately lied to lead the coutnry into war, why did he do so?? Not because of oil--the percentage of our imported oil that comes from Iraq is surprisingly small (not that extracting more oil from Iraq as a means of getting more leverage on Saudi Arabia would've been a bad idea). Not for politics--why would he invade a year and a half before coming up for re-election, by which time any political boost would have long worn off?? Not to avenge the assassination attempt on his father--that could explain Bush's motives, but not the motives of others in the government, and certainly not the motives of Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar, etc. Not just for the hell of it--we were already at war (albeit low-intensity war after the first couple of months) in Afghanistan. Why, then??
I'm making the "accusation" because it's true. No-one aside from total crackpots, on here or elsewhere, seriously believed Saddam didn't have WMDs before the invasion. This is revisionist history at its finest (you know, most lefties when confronted with this fact will at least say something like "Yeah, but that's because Bush lied and I believed it"...you should try something like that rather than simply denying the past truth...just a thought).
When you read Aristotle you notice pretty early on that he was very fond of the formulation "all rational men will agree..." and that whenever it appears, it introduces something which many rational men will in fact not agree to... I can't think of a single person I discussed it with who believed that Saddam did have WMDs. That was so transparent to so many of us that you are going to have to answer to yourself for your gullability sooner or later...
If I understand you correctly, you're saying the notion of a Kerry voter being against impeachment is contradictory. Which is a perfect example of projection by the will to power branch of the Republican party.
You can't impeach a senator. Not to mention the DSM don't talk about senators. Please stop being stupid. I know it's hard for you.
I object to my esteemed colleague from the District of Columbia's denigration of this nation's fine record of all things Congressional. And I would like to read into the record my recognition of the potato as the finest tuber in this great land.
You clearly have no idea what that phrase meant, and therefore means. Please stop sleeping through history class. Don't speak for me, and the others. By the time the war started, there were many of us newsgeeks who knew he had nothing. I thought we might find a few strays left over from the 80s (like that lone, solitary IED that had chemical weapons in it.) I'm not talking about everyone opposed to the war now. I'm talking about many of us here, and millions across the United States. You seem to have forgotten just how bad Powell's UN presentation was, and how strong the debunking reporting on it afterward.