And Don't Tell Me They Planted Them, Either

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. First they found Russian-made Mig-25s in the Iraqi desert back in July, 2003, (which I bet you didn't know about, thanks to the liberal media) now they've found so-called "non-existent" weapons of mass destruction. Anyone getting the theme here? You just know the desperate lefties out there are already scheming to come up with a way to say these weapons were planted. Look, one more time; Bush did not lie. Where's the Proof you ask? Well there's this:

Clinton Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, Feb. 1998:
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there means a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rouge state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, Feb. 1998:
"He [Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."

Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, Oct. 2003:
"When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently, he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to priveleged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

French President, Jacques Chirac, Feb. 2003:
"There is a problem-the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrolable country, Iraq. The international community was right...in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

Former President Bill Clinton, Dec. 1998:
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them, not once but repeatedly-unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing scud missles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq...I have no doubt today, that left unchecked Saddam Hussien will use these terrible weapons again."

Bill Clinton, July, 2003:
"It is incontestable that on the day that I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."

General Wesley Clarke, Sept. 2002: Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee:
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. ...Yes he has chemical and biological weapons...He is, as far as we know actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sept. 2002:
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

Howard Dean, Feb. 2003:
"I agree with President Bush-he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deciever. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and he has refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spreading weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a diiferent place other than in the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country."

Howard Dean, Mar. 2003:
"[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."

Clinton assistant secratary of state for non-proliferation, Robert Einhorn, Mar. 2002:
"How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missle attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate and limited in size). Within four or five years, it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissle material produced indigenously-and to threaten U.S. territories with such weapons delivered by non-conventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get it's hands on suffiecient quantities of already produced fissle material, these threats could arrive much sooner."

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others in a letter to President Bush, Dec. 2001:
"There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is [undoubtedly] using the cover of licit missile program to develope longer-range missles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., Dec. 1998:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W. Va., Oct. 2002:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."

Former President Bill Clinton, Feb. 1998:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develope weapons of mass destruction and the missles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Bill Clinton, Feb. 1998:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.program."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mi., Sep. 2002:
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fl, and others, Dec. 2001:
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missle program to develope longer-range missles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others, Oct. 1998:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with congress and consistent with the U.S. constitution and laws to take necessary actions (including, if appropiate, air and missle strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. For the record, faulty intelligence is NOT lying. Moreover, for those of you not paying attention before the war, everybody from John Kerry and Howard Dean to Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi voted in favour of the War Resolution. Why? Because they saw the same intel reports that the President did. As did the U.N. Security Council when they gathered information from the intelligence communities from such nations as France, Russia, Japan, Germany, Australia, as well as the U.S. AND, the President, contrary to popular (i.e indoctrinated) belief did not "rush to war". Unless of course, you consider 18 months of diplomatic manouvering to gather a coalition, rushing to war. Remember: Sept. 11, 2001 (Terrorist attack on America) Mar. 19, 2003 (Start of Operation: Iraqi Freedom)

And one very important thing to keep in mind is, all of these people as well as the U.N. Security Council, saw the same intelligence reports as the President did. They voted on the War Resolution and voted to go to war.



So, it may appear that the faulty intel was not so faulty afterall.