For months now Democrats in general, and the Kerry campaign in particular have been advancing two arguments:
1. Bush lied about WMD's being present in Iraq to drag us into war (probably for oil).
2. Bush lied about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida
The story goes that Bush was pre-determined to go to war with Iraq before 9-11 either to avenge his father or to pay back his rich oil buddies, and that he used these pretenses to achieve his evil agenda.
Months and months of far left protesters carrying "Bush lied, kids died" signs.
Not only are those two arguments wrong on their face. 17 UN resolutions in 12 years give weight to the argument about WMD's in Iraq. And we've known about connections between Iraq and Al Qaida for some time now, as Ann Coulter documents well in her latest column.
But I offer 3 recent news stories as further proof:
1. Authorities thwart terrorist bombing in Jordan. Jordanian officials identified the terrorists as Al Qaida members. Among their supplies were explosives and chemical nerve agents supplied by Syria. Intelligence estimates that Syria never produced these types of chemical agents. Probable source, Iraq. (Bolsters the argument that Sadaam simply transferred his stockpile over the border to Syria in the months preceding the March invasion). Estimates are that this attack would have killed as many as 80,000 in Jordan.
2. Nicholas Berg is executed by Al Qaida. In Iraq.
3. Chemical weapon explodes today in Iraq. Sarin gas is detected. American explosives experts who detonated the explosive had to be treated for exposure to Sarin gas. Sarin being a WMD outlawed in Iraq which Sadaam claimed to have destroyed before the 1st gulf war.
I personally think both claims were true from the beginning. Sadaam had WMD's, which he likely transferred to Syria. And Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaida were working together on 9-11 not because they like each other, buth because they have a common enemy in us.
So, who's been lying? I'll hold my breath for an apology from the left.
No comments:
Post a Comment