NRO's Mark Levin: NYT "Strikes a Blow to Democrat Mantra" that Bush Lied to Get US into Iraq

[BurtWorm]

This is how the GOP Nuke Sharing Scandal is playing in Wingerland:

http://levin.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTA5OTk0NDQzYjBlNzllODcyOTM0OTU2ZDcwMDExZDA=

The Times has just confirmed two things: 1. President Bush was right when he said that Hussein was a threat to the world because, among other things, he would continue to pursue weapons of mass destruction; and 2. congressional Republicans were right in demanding a more aggressive and thorough effort by the Pentagon to interpret the enormous number of documents captured from the Iraqi regime.

The Times's emphasis on "Republicans" demanding the release of these documents and the administration's posting them on a public website was an obvious attempt by the newspaper to cause some kind of eleventh-hour Republican embarrassment. The Times had hoped the weekend before the election would be spent debating the handling of this information rather than its existence and substance. But it was wrong. This is a stunning find that confirms a primary basis for the president ordering the military to remove Hussein from power. This finding also strikes a blow to the Democrat mantra that the president lied to get us into the war with Iraq.

The Democrats and their partners in the liberal media demand to know what the president plans to do to stop Iran and North Korea from securing nuclear weapons. Yet, when he did, in fact, stop Iraq from getting those same weapons, he is loudly denounced for it.

Thanks to the New York Times for disclosing this important information four days before a crucial election. Your November surprise has just backfired.

[Old and In the Way]

1. Could the Republican Syncophants be any more dishonest with themselves?

Just want are these people's financial motivations for puffing up this criminal administration?

[warrens]

2. They're SO SURE there MUST be something in that document dump

They've had the Freepers reading them to see if any of them are worth anything. So far, nada.

[BurtWorm]

6. Freepers with Arabic dictionaries

What a thought!

:scared:

[wryter2000]

3. Is it just me?

Or does that say nothing but in a very confusing way? :crazy:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. No. Saddam's capability advanced not one iota

from 1995 to the start of the war in 2003.
Inspections, containment, the occasional Clinton era air strike, had successfully kept Saddam at square 1 for 8 years.
2003 pre-war inspections would have confirmed this.
Bush blew it.

[BootinUp]

5. Look at it this way

A few years ago this story would have appeared IN the NYT. Now it will be relegated to urban myth status.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

7. I think Bill Maher said it best

Sure, Saddam could at some point in the future have changed his mind and started researching nuclear weapons, but so could Dairy Queen.

[Richard Steele]

8. Nothing but BLATANT FUCKING LIES from these assholes.

There was a time when "political differences" were honest
differences of opinion.

That time is LONG gone. The Repubs and their paid mouthpieces
no longer have different opinions, they simply spew the
most BLATANT, BALDFACED LIES they can think of.

They have an utter CONTEMPT for "honesty".
And not the variety that FAMILIARITY breeds.