"Sorry Davin but surprisingly enough I don’t bookmark your posts. We’re talking over a year ago. Why the hell would I want to go back and re-read what you have written. Besides, I remember calling you on it at the time."

Jesus, Rob- its called HTTP params- you can get to every thread on this board in about 5 min.

"Wriggle my ass- I’m just tired of dealing with your fragile ego- which I will be more sensitive to in the future in order to save us both time."

Oh, thank god! Because for a minute I thought you were about to hurt my feelings. That would be just more than I could bear, seeing as how I am such a delicate flower.

"And for the third time will answer my original question?"

OKAY, IF YOU INSIS<fontcolor="magenta">T
(Yes, I can abuse HTML as well!)

Actually, Rob, I have been working late- its 11:damn-45 right now and I have another hour before I can go to bed. I wasn't avoiding you, but when you post provacative insinuating posts when I have limited time, I'll answer the provocative insinuations first, ya durn fool!

Okay, i take your questin to be:

"The commission's final report is due out in June. That will leave five months until the election. Is this not enough time to establish the extent of Bush's culpability?"

Sure! Plenty of time! Veritible mountains of time! I'm not sure why you think that I was saying thats not enough time- The argument I was pressing with Tom is that Condi Rice should testify in public and on the record (now a concern that is obviated). please read the post of mine reprinted below (original HTML stripped, so it might be hard to read). Please pick out where I say anything about timing, stuff it with crow and serve it to me undercooked on a cold platter. Do I need to offer to pay you to do that too? Or are you just too pressed for time to contend with my delicate ego? Or maybe this is yet another of my 'standard excuses' that you have all saved up but no historical reference to back?

Oh, this is just so much more than I can bear. I think I will have to lay down and just swoon.

The rest of your post doesn't look like a question, but a statement- so I'm not sure what your all so fired up that I respond to.

And as for:

"“When your opponent starts to grow weary or show signs of conciliation - go on the offensive.”"

Yes, and you have shown signs of conciliation, my Dear robVG? You came out swinging and last I checked with my rhetorical jaw, are still swinging- not (of course) that I think less of you- mind.

Aww, admit it Rob- Yer just pissed I turned out right on all of those pre-war posts about Terrorists and Saddam being a threat... Its just plain eating you up inside...

Now don't forget that helpin' of conciliation you promised me... ;-)

(I really do enjoy this, and I hope you don't take offense at my above sarcasm- you're one of my favorites around these parts and I hope you keep giving me hell... now go ahead, swing that bat!)

Davin

The 'reprint'

Lets suppose that by admitting that this administration made mistakes, we must admit that the Clinton administration made mistakes.

Okay. Done. Clinton f'd up. So did Bush the Father. But that does not strip those who want Bush held accountable of the poihnt that we are trying to make.

What is the point?

The point is that this administration is using its record on terrorism as a campaign issue- is saying that it did a good job.

By sending Condi out as one of the Clarke-assassins, and then refusing to allow her testimony to be on the record, under oath and in public it means that Condi Rice can say anything she wants to in both the public and congressional arena.

Your point about prevention is not ignored. I think, and a lot of people thing, you can't have prevention without accountability. If this administration is never taken to task for this incident that happened on their watch, but is instead allowed to spin it to look like they did the right things- then there is no accountability and the message to all presidents is this:

"Don't worry if you screwed up, don't even bother trying to avoid a screw up- just focus on the political spin effort and you can turn it into an attribute to run for re-election on"

No, if as you say, we have to lay some of the blame on Clinton- then so be it. But the point is that 3000 people lay dead under piles of smoking rubble and nobody in the administration has even said so much as a 'whoops'! (Clarke has, BTW). Instead, this administration would have you believe that it did nothing wrong, could have done nothing different. Despite all the data that we have now that shows clearly how this could have been averted- this administration is standing there saying that these perfect flawless terrorists could not have been stopped no matter what.

And not only are they saying this, but they are preventing these claims from being tested- they are refusing to allow Dr. Rice (who, and according to clarke, could make-or-break these above claims of perfection and innocence) to testify under oath, in public and oin the record.

So what we are left with is: "Its not our foault- simply believe us!"

Now for shills and fools, this is not an issue- but for all of us who think democracy works at least in part because we hold our elected officials accountable for thir actions- this is a problem.

Its not a "you have nothing to hide, so why not" argument. Its a "its your damn job!" argument. This is a gov't of the people for the people and by the people- and Condi Rice and Bush have some explaining to do. Its our duty and right to hear that explanation and then take action at the voting booths.