WMD's wer not a lie nor a joke, But the Liberals would like you to think so

There has been a lot of talk about the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq or the lack there of. We didn't seem to find many up to date weapons after our invasion five years ago. The calls began to go out that Bush lied and that there never were WMD in Iraq.

Well we know that Saddam did have such weapons because he used them on his own people. He had scud missiles that he sent to Israel during the first Gulf Conflict. He could have easily modified the warheads to carry chemical weapons and he did do so.

We know, though he was not able to get his hands on any, that Saddam was looking to acquire nuclear material or weapons.

There has been a lot of talk about how no WMD's were found in Iraq. However the dirty little secret is that if you notice they always say none were found in IRAQ. They do not say that Saddam never had them and was not trying to get more or build more.

In fact just about every report indicates that Saddam was trying to rebuild his WMD machine. And report after report indicates what intelligent and logical people know. Saddam and his high ranking trusted Generals began shipping his WMD's to his ally in Syria.

We also know that Saddam was willing to send some of his military equipment to his enemy, Iran to keep it from being captured or destroyed by the American Army.

The problem is the American people have been falsely led to believe that Saddam did not have any WMD. But we can see report and story after report and story that he did and was looking for more. Even newspapers that are not typically conservative have delved into this and dug up some interesting facts.

The New York Sun had a report back in January of 2006 about this. This was about the time that the Liberal Democrats were starting to ratchet up their lies and rhetoric for the run for the White House.

A Lebanese report back in 2004 indicated that a WMD program was being hidden in Syria and that Saddam and even North Korea were in on it.

The news is so prevalent that even the bloggesphere has a buzz about it. One blog, Stix, that says this;

There is a report to come out that says Saddam transfered weapons to Syria. Who would have thought of that???

An upcoming joint US-Israel report on the September 6 IAF strike on a Syrian facility will claim that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein transferred weapons of mass destruction to the country, Channel 2 stated Monday.

Furthermore, according to a report leaked to the TV channel, Syria has arrested 10 intelligence officials following the assassination of Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh.

So it would seem that just about everyone knows that Saddam had WMD and was willing to use them and was willing to get more of them. So then why do the Democrats and the Liberal American press want to keep up with the lie that they did not exist?

Simple. They want power. They want to paint Bush as a liar and a thief. They want to portray our President as a spoiled little brat that is doing his fathers bidding by getting the man that he could not get when he was President.

They want to say that Republican Conservatives are nothing but war machine and oil baron promoters. They want to get into office so bad so they can take your freedom away. Why else would they be so willing to lie and put you and your family and our country at risk? They have their own agenda and they have their own WMD.

The American and Wold Liberal media is out to get the Democrats in office. They know how good it was when Bill Clinton was President. They want those years back. They want more open borders. They want more free transfer of classified and sensitive information and technology. They want the US people to be more vulnerable because in a way it makes their own nations more safe.

They want a weaker USA. In short, they know who will give them what they want. Liberal Democrats. So the next time you hear one of them say that Bush lied or there were NEVER WMD in Iraq:

Stop. Think. Vote.

The House of Reprehensibles still doing nothing

Today, the House of Reprehensibles voted for contempt of Congress charges on two of President Bush's aids. Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers were held in contempt because they are accused of failing to testify and refused Congress' demands for documents related to the 2006 and 2007 Justice Department firings.

This is totally reprehensible because there are more pressing issues that this do-nothing congress needs to be focusing on. Economic issues. Energy issues. National security issues. They all have more importance than this notion that Bush fired a host of prosecutors simply for political reasons.

First of all, of course it was political. What in Washington, D.C., is not political? Did the Republicans hold endless hearings on Bill Clinton's White House because of over 700 missing FBI files? No. We still don't know what happened to all those files.

This is nothing more than a witch hunt. Make no mistake about it. The Democrats are still upset about Republicans Impeaching Bill Clinton back in the 90's. The Democrats are still angry that the rule of law prevailed and Bush won the White House back in 2000. Then Democrats are 0 – 2 and they resent it big time.

They have been trying so hard to “nail” George Bush that they investigate “Ken Star” style and still they can't find any dirt. The best they can do is catch someone in a lie and then its because the person who they accuse of lying agreed to cooperate. So don't expect people to run to a Democrat controlled House and be willing to cooperate. They know they will be asked question on top of question and each time they will be looking for even the smallest “lie” in order to pounce and take them to trial.

This is what happened to “Scooter” Libby. He cooperated and low and behold, he was caught in a small lie and wham, he finds himself getting convicted of purgery. Didn't Bill Clinton commit purgery while sitting in a court room? Yes he did and every body knows he did. But is Clinton sitting in a jail, where he belongs? No.

This Congress has an approval rating hovering just above 10% and they think they are doing the business of the people? Of course not. They are doing exactly what they accuse Bush of doing. They are playing politics.

Everyone in the Federal Departments serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. He is charged with making sure those departments function. The president has every right, as the Chief Executive Officer of the country to hire and fire whomever he chooses. So yes, the president has the right to hire and fire based on a persons politics. After all if a person will not do what the president want, just like in private business, he has a right to replace that person to do what he feels is the right thing.

So if President Bush had a number of Democrat prosecutors fired, it is because they did not do their jobs to the satisfaction of the president. He had every right to fire them. In fact Bill Clinton fired nearly the entire staff of the Justice Department when he first entered office. But we did not hear a peep from the Democrats then.

So why is it that this congress feels it needs to hold a couple of low level aids in contempt. Well actually its about the only thing they have been able to accomplish since taking the majority. Now I wonder who is playing politics.