What? Haven't you heard?

"Bush lied!" What, haven't you heard? Liberals have been spouting this accusation for years. Apparently, Bush lied about Saddam Hussein possessing WMD's and other nuclear / biological weapons of mass destruction.

Before I go any further, you should know that I am not Bush's biggest fan. He's too liberal for my taste. He has spent faaaar too much money and has not come through with enough tax cuts. President Bush's nomination of Harriett Miers was also a bit disappointing just the fact that he would nominate someone to the Supreme Court who wasn't an Originalist. Sorry for this little rabbit trail but I wanted you to understand that even though I'm a Republican I criticize the President's liberal policies like a liberal might expect me to. Without further delay, back to Bushs lie ...

So Bush lied. That's what the Leftist party in our land is ramming down our throats. "Bush lied" has become their never-ending mantra. It really is a silly thing to accuse our President of because it assumes Bush's motives. If Bush lied then he intentionally put forth false information to push us into a war with Iraq.

The Democrats fail miserably with this argument for two reasons: (1) If Bush lied, then so did Bill Clinton (while in office), John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and a HOST of other Democrats who made the *exact* same claims - not to mention the British, Russian, French, and Australian governments (whoops, looks like I mentioned 'em anyhow). (2) Secondly, they do not (or cannot?) tell us what the real reason for going to war was? Certainly if our President purposefully lied to the world he had some secret motive(s) for doing so. Was it so his Vice President could get even richer by making key deals with Halliburton? Or was it so that Bush could steal Iraq's oil?

Now if Dems were consistent they would be equally critical towards their own party leaders who have said the same things about Saddan Hussein's nuclear capabilities. The fact of the matter is, President Bush, along with the rest of the world came to the only logical conclusion at the time.

Let's refresh our memory: Saddam Hussein has had nuclear and biological weapons in the past; in fact he has used biological weapons against his own citizens. We know that Saddam had the ability to make nuclear and biological weapons, which is what the intelligence agencies of the world told us. Saddam was a known supporter of terrorists and an enemy of the United States and her allies. To top it all off, Saddam had broken a dozen or more United Nations resolutions and would not fully cooperate with the U.N.'s investigation in search of weapons of mass destruction.

Many liberals, with the luxury of hindsight, now make the argument that we should have trusted Saddam. That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats: Repubs dont trust evil dictators; Dems are willing to take evil dictators at their word. It's that simple folks. Furthermore, if the Democrats had their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

With regard to the Democrats' second inconsistency, I would find it absolutely fascinating to hear a legitimate reason for the President to purposefully *lie* to the world, so he could "finish what his father started." Did Bush really want to help Cheney increase in wealth? Did Cheney promise Bush a couple million bucks under the table if he started a war and used Cheney's former company? I would LOL if anyone seriously made this argument. Next ... oil. Did the President go to war to steal Iraq's oil supply? Hmm, lets ponder this for a moment ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (whew, thats enough thinking). If Bush wanted Iraq's oil, why hasn't he taken any of it? Why has our military continued to protect Iraq's oil refineries so that Iraq can produce and sell its own oil? Why hasn't Bush asked for a percentage of Iraq's oil profits? Bush could have given Iraq a bill for all we have done for them: ridding them of a tyrant, the investment of billions of dollars to help create a stable economy, the billions this war has cost, or the 2000+ American lives the war has claimed. How much money have we actually received from Iraq? NUTHIN. A big fat ZERO. Nada. Thats right folks America, and our allies have paid the entire bill ... all for Iraq's safety and stability. So back to oil. Sure doesnt sound like Bush has made much profit from the war after all. Hmm. What do the Dems have to say about this? Not a word =).

I'm not saying that Bush has been flawless towards the War on Terror, but his overall performance in this area has been more than satisfactory. If nothing else, George W. Bush will be known as the President who fought to secure a safer America and a safer world.

In short, liberals lack consistency and workable arguments. They are overly critical of Bush about the War and cannot apply their own standards on themselves, for that would reveal gross inconsistency.

I am thankful that the Leftist Party in our land has caused us to once again examine our own views about the state of things.

America is not perfect, but we're not the cause of the world's problems. America is by and large a force for good in the world. Surely the Lord has been merciful to our nation.