Ron, To my knowledge the vast majority of the evidence has not been refuted.
You continue to go down this road, but I don't think you've looked far enough ahead yet to see the inevitable destination. All you're really saying is that Clinton and others had the same ambiguous evidence Bush had, but refused to act upon it because it WAS ambiguous. Instead of suggesting Bush was right, you're just characterizing him as more rash than his predecessors.
That would be true if it were conceded that the evidence was ambiguous. It hasn't been proven to me that it was ambiguous.
I know the frustration, Raph. I feel the same way when trying to talk to folks who hold an opposing view.
But I never said that Bush was perfect. It just hasn't been proven to me that he led us into war based on lies.
And I'm not easily outraged. I wasn't really outraged over Clinton, though I said in retrospect I probably should have been, given that he was the President at the time (similar to what Brad said about Americans being held to higher standards than what the terrorists are held to, perhaps Presidents are usually held, or should be held, to a higher standard than the average citizen?)
my point is the same zealousy that went into impeaching Clinton over lying to the public about his personal life, should be aimed at an administration lying with regards to a war. Which, despite evidence, partisan shackles won't allow some to admit.
My "go for the throat" was in reference to your above comment. No, if I believe that the Republicans were overzealous in their treatment of Clinton (and I do), I wouldn't advocate that the Democrats respond in kind, even if it were proven to me that Bush lied (which it hasn't been). Two wrongs don't make a right?
And since I love you guys, I'll just leave it at that and agree that we just disagree.
Juju, I could be wrong, but I don't think so.