« pssst... | Main | who you are says a lot about you! »

toren mad. you will not like toren mad.

Toren is still officially on hiatus, but he broke his fast for this one post, and it's a killer.

..the claim that because we haven't yet found vast quantities of WMDs does NOT "prove Bush was lying." If he was, then what about these people:

And then he lists quotes by Madeline Albright, Robert Byrd, Gore, The Clintons and much, much more. Hypocrites, one and all.

Read the whole thing, as they say.


Michele, it doesn't matter. I am being told over and over again that is nothing but "spin."

Every time I ask people to provide evidence that Bush, Blair and others specifically conspired to lie to the world in order to go to war with Iraq, I get a lot of righteous indignation and Bush quotes, but no evidence. Or they'll say, "Well, they're not in charge, but Bush is" as though that actually means something.

It doesn't matter. Even if they do find WMD, it won't be enough and they'll still say Bush lied about the threat. The 'impeach Bush' drum is already beating in some corners.

You're right, Jay, No amount of evidence will ever be enough. Even if tomorrow we found that Saddam in fact had a fully developed nuclear arsenal and found his plans to launch an attack on the US with it later this year, they'd STILL find a reason to say he wasn't really a threat and the war wasn't justified. (We had him "contained" with inspectors, right? Bwahahahaha)

This isn't about the truth. This is about politics and the moonbats' obsession with being right at all costs. Period. Best you can do at this point is ignore them, because they're not going to budge on this one no matter how much sense you talk to them.

The Republicans made a BIG mistake trying to impeach Clinton (let alone going nuts in Florida). Lots of people are out for blood, I'm sure.

What ever happened to simple wisdom like, protect your reputation by playing fair?

While I am a person who did not wish to go to war, I find the idea of 'Bush lied about WMD' distasteful and sad. That's like saying there were no valid reasons to go to war - there were. Plenty. The threat was real - the possibility was there. I'm not a fan of Bush. I don't like a lot of his decisions - but he is the elected president (pipe down everyone who is going to whine at this point about Florida - let it go, just don't let it happen again) and that means he gets to do his job the way he and his advisors see fit. If I don't agree, I won't vote for him next time around. Simple as that. People are complaining he did this just to get re-elected. Well, if he did this and gets re-elected because of it, wouldn't that suggest he acted in the interest of the majority of Americans? Or am I missing something here?

I believe the whole point of the article referenced to was that the same people and orginizations who,today cry for proof of WMDs,are the ones who were,during the Clinton administration,demanding that something be done about Iraqs WMDs.
Or did I miss something? I don`t think so,read the quotes.