|President George W. Bush|
The Left, the Desperate Dems, and every liberal interest group not interested in the truth is going to jump up and down to distract an demean anyone who points out that President Obama lied repeatedly about his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act.
Because they cannot defend their President (Obama), they will readily fall back on their easiest pastime and indict President Bush about the War in Iraq, as if that invasion then justifies the expansion of the federal government into our health care system today, and even supports the massive, comprehensive failure of health insurance companies and the rationing of available health care in the future.
But let us assume that the argument about Bush and the War in Iraq is a meaningful retort, as though President Bush's "fraud and deceit" justifies our not paying attention to the current Commander in Chief, who has made excuse after excuse hiding away his poor leadership and laying it at the threshold of the prior administration.
The truth is that President George W. Bush did not lie the United States into war with Iraq.
Five separate intelligence agencies had concluded that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
To this day, the British Government stands by the assertion that there were WMD in the country.
Two of the countries with concurring intelligence, Germany and France, refused to send troops into Iraq, even though they believed that the country had the weapons.
Now, USA Today did publish these findings in 2004, which began with the following statement:
When the United States invaded Iraq last year to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or any facilities to build them, according to a definitive report [The Dueler Report] released Wednesday.
However, the report proved not to be definitive, as the Washington Post issued the following in 2005:
BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.
For the record, this article was published in the same Washington Post which brought down the Nixon Administration, and the same paper which Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia cannot bear to read because of its "shrilly, shrilly liberal" content.
Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been "coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians," partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said.
Then the report ends with:
No chemical weapons are known to have been used so far in Iraq's insurgency. Al Qaeda announced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States that it was looking into acquiring biological, radiological and chemical weapons. The next year, CNN obtained and aired al Qaeda videotapes showing the killings of three dogs with what were believed to be nerve agents.
In contrast to President Obama, who has been drawing red lines against tyranny, only to watch targeted dictators redden Obama's faux-boundaries further with the blood of insurgents, as well as redden with shame the foreign policy corps of the Obama Administration, President Bush talked tough to terrorism and did not wink at evil. One wonders what Saddam Hussein would have perpetrated if Al Gore or John Kerry won the White House in 2000 and 2004 respectively.
But if the dueling coverage from national newspaper media is not enough, then the Wikileaks cables, released by notorious espionage narcissist Julian Assange, confirm that American troops continued searching for weapons of mass destruction, finding caches of weapons agents throughout Iraq. The amounts of toxins alone outline that Saddam Hussein was prepping for another comprehensive weapons program. One statement from the Wired.com summary bears reposting:
Nearly three years later , American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”
How about that?
Recently, the questions emerge as to how Syria got its chemical weapons, too. Accounts from former Hussein officials, as well as accounts from Middle East reporters argue strongly that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein took Bush's threats of invasion seriously enough, that he had his WMD moved into Syria.
While this allegation remains open to conjecture, the outspread violence in Syria, with incoming reports of deaths from chemical weapons, strongly suggest that prior accounts of Iraq-Syria WMD trafficking are legitimate.
Wow! Kind of puts a damper on the whole "Bush lied. People died" mantra, doesn't it?!
If Bush had been lying about the reasons for going into Iraq, why would classified documents record that American forces were still searching for WMD? These clandestine operations were to remain under utmost secrecy, yet inadvertently this negative breach of security exposes that President Bush was not a fraud. And that President Obama has presided as one of the most ineffective chief executives in modern times, so much so that military and diplomatic espionage better defines the absentee-elitist Obama Administration more than any successful military operations. Osama Bin Laden is dead, but what else is dying in the Middle East? Stable regimes sympathetic to Israel, plus any hopes of brokering a lasting peace in which hostile Arab states recognize the Jewish state's right to exist.
Let us not forget the the Democratic National Convention's voting electorate's attempt to strip away any recognition of Jerusalem as the rightful capital of Israel. Practicing his adept comfort with extralegal maneuvers, perhaps, Obama pressured for the Jerusalem platform to remain, despite the loud boos erupting from the DNC floor.
Bush lied, people died? No. Obama lies, and a lot has died with it? Yes.
Without Bush as a convenient foil, and with their popularity index plunging, President Obama and the Democrats in Washington (and throughout the country) are desperate for anyone else to attack (The Koch Brothers) or any other hollow indictment ("war" on women, minorities, homosexuals, etc) and impugn these strawmen as meager distractions from the failed Democratic, progressive policies which the Democrats themselves can no longer support.
"Obama Lies, Health care dies" -- that mantra has a much better ring to it: truthful (or "truthiness" for those still hankering after Bush) as well as current, and even the marginalized mainstream media cannot spin the pain and suffering caused by the unaffordable Affordable Care Act.
Now, I am waiting for the moment when Democrats starting blaming George W. Bush for Obamacare, too. That will be too much to pass up, although I am sure that they will try to pass it by, if they haven't already.