Even a blind nut can find a squirrel occasionally

posted by The Vidiot @ 1:22 PM Permalink

KING: So there is no doubt, if you had it to do over again, knowing the WMDs weren't there, you'd still go in?

G. BUSH: Yes. This is -- we removed a tyrant, who was a weapon -- he was an enemy of the United States

Funny, rummy didn't used to think so:

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983

Now back to Bush for your regularly scheduled deprogramming:

"who harbored terrorists"

How often will he repeat that lie!? The truth willout:

"A new CIA assessment say[s] there's no conclusive evidence that [Saddam's] regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."

And:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
[...]
Shortly after Cheney asserted these links, Bush contradicted him, saying: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th."
[...]
The [9/11] report said that bin Laden "at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."

So OBL sponsored terrorists against Saddam. Only Bush could spin that into a collaborative relationship. And speaking of Bush speaking, let the lies continue:

"and who had the capacity, at the very minimum, to make weapons of mass destruction. And he was a true threat."

Oh come on! Even Bush himself has said that wasn't true! Can't he even keep track of his own lies!?
I'll just excerpt a few of those moving goal posts and blatant lies from a Rotten source, but one that quotes Bush himself:

Before 9-11 - 2 Dec 1999
During a debate in New Hampshire, Presidential candidate George W Bush declares: "If I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take 'em out. I'm surprised he's still there." Asked if that meant he would overthrow Saddam, Bush said he was only talking about "the weapons of mass destruction."
[...]
28 Oct 2002
President George W Bush declares: "It's a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them. See, he'll lie. He'll deceive us. And he'll use them." [ED: Pot/Kettle!?]
[...]
21 Jan 2004
During his State of the Union speech, President Bush [...] declaring: "the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities"

So Bush has gone from 'has WMDs' to tried to 'tried to acquire WMDs' to 'Saddam has WMD program related activities' and now back to 'had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.'

Which completely contradicts the findings of his own Iraq Survey Group. Now why would Bush say such an obvious lie? Maybe the answer lies in this quote:

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair Interview, May 28, 2003