Look through a couple of days worth of opinion papers and you're sure to see it. Someone with an overdeveloped sense of outrage at President George W. Bush lashing out by claiming that he lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"Where are the WMDs" they cry. "If there aren't any WMDs, then Bush is a liar," they say. "Bush bungled his way to war in Iraq." Well, I hate to spoil their party (OK so I don't give a big whoop about spoiling their party, and in fact I kind of enjoy it.) but WMDs have turned up in Iraq. This morning, (Monday, May 17), as I write this the airwaves are abuzz with the news of an improvised explosive device that contained sarin nerve agent that exploded near a coalition convoy.

That's not all, two weeks ago a similar device turned out to be filled with mustard gas. There is no doubt, there is no wiggle room, there is no misunderstanding. WMDs are now and have been in Iraq all along.

Do I expect those who have been saying that Bush lied because no WMDs had turned up to now acknowledge their error? Surely you jest. Those who have been saying Bush lied will never admit they could be in error.

The next tactic they employ will be obfuscation, the last gasp of the diehard partisan. "Well," they'll say, "two IEDs filled with sarin and mustard gas aren't that much, let's not make a mountain of a molehill." Sorry, that train left the station long, long ago. The partisans that have been whining the loudest about the lack of evidence of WMDs have made that a losing tactic. They have made such a big deal out of WMDs that now that there is evidence to prove their existence the whole issue is a third rail for Bush's opponents. They have made the non-existence so important that the existence of any WMDs destroys their entire argument.

Two IEDs or 200, the number isn't important, what is important is the existence, in Iraq, of WMD. The existence of WMD, in and of itself, is enough of a rebuttal of the partisan liberal attack machine to need no further enhancements.

Another trick Bush's critics might try to employ is to try to confuse the issue. They might try to insulate their position about WMDs and just say Bush lied and leave unspoken any mention of WMDs.

The problem with that tactic is that people like me have inconveniently long memories. They may forget what they're accusing Bush of lying about, but I won't, and I'll point it out every single time one of the Bush haters try it.

Let's face facts. Those who oppose the war in Iraq aren't going to change their minds now, it doesn't matter how much evidence is compiled, they hate Bush and they opposed the war because he is for it. No amount of proof will be enough for them. Saddam himself could take coalition forces to the locations of tons of WMDs and the wars opponents would find some other objection to the war.

The Bush haters have put their opposition to him above the needs of the country. They have given aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. Their hatred of Bush is so ingrained and so pervasive they are unable to see that the sins they've committed are worse by an order of magnitude than any of his.

Whenever someone tells it like it is and tells vociferous critics of the war their actions hurt America, not just Bush, they jump up and down and complain that their patriotism is being attacked. No, I'm not saying any of Bush's critics are not patriotic, I'm saying the ones who put their agenda ahead of the country's safety are stupid.

Trust me, it's not the same thing, but a stupid patriot can hurt the country as bad as a competent turncoat. If people think they're helping America by making outrageous claims about George Bush they are sadly mistaken. Our enemies take that opposition and whip up anti-American fervor that gets Americans killed.