Dems rail at Bush about the lack of WMDs in Iraq, but we know that Saddam broadcast to anyone who would listen that he had them.
So, if Saddam is admitting to having WMDs while we're threatening to invade for that very reason, why should we not believe him? Forget all the intelligence services who claimed Saddam had weapons; Saddam himself told us he did. Was Bush expected to diagnose him as a suicidal liar? Give me a break.
Saddam admitted he wanted to reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as he broke the sanctions.
Thanks to the corruption in the UN, the Oil for Food program was destabilizing the sanctions against Saddam. He knew it was just a matter of time until he would (admittedly) work on rebuilding his programs. Way to go Useless Nincompoops.
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." (GW Bush, September 2003)This quote from GW Bush is hard for libtards to understand. Perhaps they would have understood had Bush said it with feewings:
"I don't feew that Saddam helped with 9/11; but I feew he was coordinating with members of Al Qaeda."
Bush clearly tells the public there was no tie between Saddam and 9/11, but Saddam did have ties to Al-Qaeda.
Very dumb Libtards refute this fact, and scream "Fact? Who says it's a fact?" then they curl into a fetal ball muttering...
"Bushitler lied, people died...Save us Cindy....Bushitler lied...people died...whimper whimper"You want facts...the BBC had plenty for you if you were even marginally open-minded or conscious of what was happening in the world. In fact they published these facts several times in 2002 - long before we invaded.
Link: Saddam helps bin Laden men (April 2002)
Link: Al-Qaeda influence grows in Iraq (July 2002)
Link: The Latest report from the Pentagon (full release Mar 2008)
Facts are stubborn things.
These are pretty straight-forward facts, established well before the March 2003 invasion; not much nuance in these links. None of these links are opinion-based like the libtard responses I anticipate.
So, what is it about the libtard mind that refuses to hear and understand (besides the psychopathy of Bush Derangement Syndrome)?
I'll admit -- I'm stumped.
Are three exhibits enough, or would you like to hear more? How about libtard accusations of corruption and how all of their investigations have been proven wrong...
As we approach this General Election the libtards will try to paint McCain with a Bush brush...I don't see that as a bad thing. I only fault Bush for allowing too much spending, which is what the Dems are going to do in much larger parcels than GW.
Additionally, I fault him for not challenging the "idiot meme" that the true idiots have laid on him. The unchallenged lie soon becomes truth.