[Registered]

..what do you think of Klaymamn saying that Cheney will be impeached over this

BTW, the only logical answer to the question that I can come up with is, "Wow, old Lar must feel he has some strong evidence" combined with "but you never seem to bring a case to fruition Larry".

If you all would stop looking down your noses from some imaginary lofty height of superiority, you might just see that not everyone "jumps the gun" on judging things. Some of us like to see things play out before we slam someone with harsh denounciation and judgment.

[Miss Marple]

Well, PCB, we are at war. We will probably attack Iraq before Christmas. This lawsuit could have waited until after the attack commenced, couldn't it?

Of course, filing it right now helps the Rats with their efforts to take back the Senate, so full speed ahead!

You didn't answer my question. If Klayman has evidence that would warrant impeachment, why didn't we hear it? Impeachment has a different standard from a court of law, so he could have announced his evidence with no problem. He didn't, because he has none.

So, PCB, I think your response is a bit lame. Unlesss you think we should just file accusatory lawsuits against anyone we disagree with. If that is your policy, you had best be hiring a lawyer.

[Miss Marple]

". Some of us like to see things play out before we slam someone with harsh denounciation and judgment."

Oh, really? Could you tell me how those of you who dislike Bush gave him the benefit of the doubt? Did you wait until the entire picture unfolded before you slammed him as not supporting Israel? How about during the China plane incident..did you wait to see what happened? Did you wait until all facts were available on the reasons for the steel tariff or CFR before attacking? How about stem cell...anyone willing to give him the benefit of the doubt?

Hypocrite.