Genius? Huh? You mean liar? Bottom line is, there's a big fuck up here. The President said something that turned out to be false. No, we didn't go to war over the 16 Words, but those words were part of the fabric that was our justification for war. Okay, so one thing has been proven false. Does that call in to question all of the other reasons? You bet your fucking ass it does, because a lot of us were questioning this shit from the get-go. Also, I am as yet to be convinced of a "present danger" from Saddam.

Then there's this nonsense that if there was any substance to the claims that the justifications for war were shaky, Bush would be in impeachment trouble. Yeah, that might be the case, if it wasn't for the fact that we have a republican controlled congress and a press that treats presidents differently. Clinton faced a republican-led congress, and the press latched onto a sex scandal like ravenous wolf high on angel dust. Meanwhile, Bush enjoys a republican led congress that is more interested in protecting its party's leader than protecting the country as well as a subdued press corps that asks bullshit scripted questions like "how is your faith guiding you?" when we're about to start fucking bombing people.

I do agree with at least part of one thing Kristol says, that the Democrats need to be "acting as an intelligent, loyal opposition." I don't care for the word loyal, because I'm getting sick of the implications that if you're not with Bush, you're with Saddam. But the words "intelligent" and "opposition" are spot on.