If we had not taken out Saddam all we would be hearing about today is the threat of WMD and libs demanding that Bush be impeached for not acting to protect America.

As Stix points out, all the lefties care about is acquiring power and the best way in their minds to do that is trash whatever Bush does.

Meanwhile, Bush was practicing the new tone and hoping that the contrast of his behavior with that of the rabid, defeat America Dems would get through the left wing media monopoly.

Sadly, the new tone turned out to be a huge mistake. It allowed the loons to continue spewing their BDS unanswered.

I remember the fallout from that union…. Our AT/FP and S2 guys had posters up all over with the quotes from Bin Laden and we were incensed about the ties with Iraq. Operation Desert Fox came months later and we thought we were going to go in and end the nightmare then.

I keep thinking that if we had not liberated Iraq, the left would be screaming things like the following:

Bush allowed Bin Laden to escape to Iraq because (insert ‘bumper-sticker reason’) and AQ has set up a safe haven and training areas there protected by Saddam. Now that Saddam has NBC weapons and the ability to launch them, there is nothing we can do.

Bush ignored clear and undeniable intelligence from the previous administration and multiple intell agencies of various nations (including Russia) indicating Iraq violated the cease fire and created the above NBC weapons and delivery systems.

Bush failed to contain Saddam.

Bush failed to see the fact Saddam would work with AQ. Therefore Bush shows he does not understand Arab nationalism.

The list goes on and on….

Dunno what you’re talking about re the Bin Laden family-are you saying GWB is friends with UBL? As I recall it was Clinton Admin holdover Richard Clarke who authorized the Bin Laden’s to leave the US after 911, and it was he who called his buddies in the UAE (where the 911 attacks were funded) to tip them off in 99 and help UBL escape.

Regime ties to AQ is not the same as Regime ties to 911.

The story here (the topic) is that the Democrats have finally admited that they’ve known since 2004 or earlier that claims from the Bush Admin re Regime ties to AQ were “supported by the intelligence”; ie, not Bush Lies.

Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi’s presence in the country.

One member of al Qaeda traveled in Iraq?

Members of al Qaeda were traveling all over, and bing funded by, Saudi Arabia up until the September 11 attacks. Was the Saudi government complicit in the attacks? Or does the Saudi Royal Family come under the automatic George w. Bush “Free Pass” because they are all family friends of the Bush’s?

More “proof” fromthe “Weekly Standard”, who pushed for the invasion of Iraq for more than a decade, and who have a vested interest in proving they were not wrong.