Freeper logic from 7/25/2003 Akron Beacon Journal

[zbdent]

Here's a pair of lines from one freepin' idjit's letter to the editor.

"I really find it hard to understand a certain segment of our population, mostly liberals. They should be thankful that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq.

Just think what could have happened on 9/11 if the terrorists would have had them. I have no doubt they would have been used by now if Saddam Hussein had had them."

Ergo, the "imminent threat" to the US.

Tried to post this Friday, but I was unable to get the link working.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/editorial/letters/6381078.htm

[grytpype]

1. No, it makes sense, really!

IF Saddam was behind 9/11 (which he wasn't) and
IF Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (which he didn't) and
IF he was willing to use them to attack America (which he wouldn't),
THEN the invasion of Iraq is justified!

So, in some alternate universe, there is no objection to the invasion.

[zbdent]

2. My take on it was this

The party line (when WMDs was not found) was one of two things:

1. SH had hidden them so well that the satellite tracking was unable to watch them move

or (more favored by the dittoheads as an attack on libs)

2. SH gave them to his terrorist buddies in Al Qaeda

If # 2 is true, then how could the terrorists not have had them?

His logic boggles my mind. According to the warmongers, SH was supplying the terrorists with all the materials he could give them. When he pretty much had free reign to do this (barring the no-fly zones) while the inspectors were banned (1998-2002), he DIDN'T give the terrorists the WMDs????? The warmongers keep saying "we'll find them" except this idiot says "They aren't there!"