[TruthShallSetYouFree]

"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat.

Stark (which is short for StarkRavingMad) is obviously too blinded by partisanship to realize the inherent contradiction in his statement. His implication is that Bush could have killed Zarqawi at any time, but chose to do it at exactly this moment "so he doesn't have to answer for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers."

Gee, Pete, I know I'm not as smart as you are (although I'll match SAT scores with you for ten bucks a point), but if Bush could have killed Zarqawi sooner, he would have killed Zarqawi sooner, and then his poll numbers wouldn't have been sagging so much.

[joyspring777]

These kind of people could never understand such logic to begin with.

[Wolfstar]

His implication is that Bush could have killed Zarqawi at any time, but chose to do it at exactly this moment...

Either that, or Stark thinks GWB has had Zarqawi's corpse on ice somewhere to pull out at "just the right moment." Sheesh! These Dims are living somewhere beyond The Twilight Zone.