In what I’m sure was meant to be another hit piece on President Bush, the New York Times is saying that a government run web site (read George Bush) designed to expose Saddam’s quest for WMD may actually have been helping Iran in theirs. The Times rather ironically is wondering why the government was releasing these “secrets”. The Times does that. Unless some government traitor is offering secrets to the Times, the Times becomes genuinely concerned for national security.
But the Times fouled up. Its hit piece included this little gem, “Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.”
Let me see. In 2002 Iraq - or is it Irak – was as little as one year away from becoming a nuclear – or is nukler – power with Saddam Hussein in charge. That would have made Iraq a nuclear power in 2003 – right? So if President Bush had not acted when he did, today - this being 2006 and more than one year from 2002 - help me John Kerry - we’d be facing a nuclear Iraq. Is that right? So does this mean Bush didn’t lie? I’m sure John Kerry and other moonbat Democrats are lined up behind a microphone somewhere waiting to get their chance to offer a sincere apology to the president and thank him for his foresight.
I'm sure the editors at the Times are surprised at their surprise.
No comments:
Post a Comment