Bush Lied?

All we ever hear in the media are rants accusing Bush of being disengenuous (I'm being nice), like this CNN article that accuses Bush of exaggerating the wmd threat in Iraq or this one in the WaPo claiming that Iraq's weapons existed on paper only. Of course, the CNN article claims the anti-war Carnegie Endowment is non-partisan, now there's a stretch, while the Washington Post quotes named and unnamed sources for its claims. Interestingly, they both ignore the story that Iraq's arms may have been hidden in Syria. If they believe the other guys from Iraq why don't they believe this guy? Because it doesn't fit into their agenda.

Then again, in 2001, right before Bush came into office, Clinton apparently warned the Bush administration about Saddam restarting his weapons programs. Imagine if Saddam's weapons had made their way into the hands of some terrorists, the left would be crowing for Bush's impeachment because he ignored this. Moreover, there's a report that Clinton was convinced Saddam had wmds based upon the years of intelligence that piled up on the issue. Of course, the leftie whiners don't base their conclusions on classified intelligence (because it's classified) but rather on "analyses" from leftie think-tanks who interviewed some people and read some news articles. In the words of Lionel Hutz: "Now that's believable testimony."

Just be happy that we have Bush as president. Without him, the left wouldn't be able to whine because we'd all be dead.