Due to the fact that I have largely neglected my GMAT studying this week, I am finally feeling pretty caught up with the political world. It's interesting to me that none of the liberal arguments have changed at all in the three or so odd months that I wasn't paying attention.

Bush is still a "liar" who "misled" and yet still none of them can explain to me why exactly it is that Bush LIED while Clinton (genius-benevolent-gracious-ruler-who-should-be-president-of-the-world) merely "made a mistake." This is the inherent flaw in their argument. It's all fine and dandy for them to claim that the Congress was misled by the President and that's why they voted for war and blah blah blah, but I notice they simply dismiss the point if you bring up Clinton making the exact same case for WMD long before Dubya was getting presidential intelligence briefings. I have NEVER seen a Democrat/Clinton-loving-anti-Iraq-war-liberal address this point. Is Bush so all-poweful that while he was the Governor of Texas he was somehow able to manipulate presidential intelligence briefings and thus mislead the brilliance that was the Clinton administration?

The sad thing is that it IS good for the country for dissenting opinions to exist. It means we have to think harder about why we stand where we stand. And sometimes we will be challenged into changing our opinions. In a free society dissenting opinions are valuable even if they are wrong if for no other reason than that they make us back up our opinions with facts and the truth. So it is pretty sad then, that today, the other side does little more than make baseless, tired old claims with either no evidence, or fabricated evidence (think Memogate amongst others). Oh and when you try to dispute their "arguments" with facts? Like the fact that Clinton made a case for WMD before Dubya set foot in office? Suddenly they have their fingers in their ears and they are singing "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."