The Democrats are making huge gains in public opinion on the line "Bush lied."
They have said it so often, many many people have come to believe it.
There is a certain flaw in the logic. The Dems never want to talk about the flaw, but here goes.
If Bush lied about the presence of WMD in Iraq, then he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S. invasion.
If he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, why would he send U.S. troops in to look for WMD and discover — for the world to see — that there weren't any WMD, and he lied?
Not even his opponents really think Bush is that stupid.
The truth is, no jokes, everybody thought there were WMDs — even the French.
The question is what should have been done about it.
Now the Dems are saying we should have danced with Saddam some more. We should have made him endure more inspectors, put pressure on him at the U.N and a bunch of other things that were tried for a decade and all of which failed.
Nobody seems to remember that between 1991 and 2001 most discussion about Saddam was what an opportunity George H. W. Bush missed by not finishing him off in the Gulf War.
Well here came G. W. and the difference between him and his father and him and Bill Clinton and him and Al Gore or him and John Kerry was he was willing to do it, willing to put an end to the problem of Saddam.
That was important and that was good.
What's going on now is revisionist history. Bush lied, no WMDs. All leading to the inevitable conclusion that all would be perfect in the world if nothing had happened and we were still watching Saddam Hussein run Iraq, steal Oil-for-Food billions, kill his political opponents and plot against his neighbors and us.
Remember, if Bush were going to lie about something, why would he send 150,000 U.S. troops to discover the lie and put it on display before the world and the American voter?
That's My Word.
Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on "The Big Story" and send your comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Read Your Word