Bush lied, people died? No. It’s more like, democrats lie, their followers cry.

Norman Podhoretz, editor-at-large for Commentary magazine has written a column posted at the Wall Street Journal’s Opinon Journal website that once and for all dispels the lie coming from the liberals mouths that Bush lied about Saddam’s possession of WMDs in order to get the U.S. committed to the illegal invasion of Iraq.

The column is rather lengthy but well worth the read. He does an excellent job of deflating the democratic lies about Bush point by point.

Podhoretz does a good job of demonstrating that not only Bush, but the CIA, the Intelligence communities of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and France, (not to mention many of these same democrats who are now doing the “Kerry flip-flop”) also were in all in one accord with Saddam’s WMD threat.

Podhoretz also reminds us that the suspicion about Saddam and WMDs actually began under the Clinton administration, (although he did nothing about it but make a few complaints and bomb a milk factory):

But the consensus on which Mr. Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration.

Here is Bill Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program."

Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Finally, Mr. Clinton's secretary of defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained "absolutely convinced" of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.

Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Mr. Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President "to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs."

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:

"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."

Democratic support for the belief that Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat continued into the Bush administration:

This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Mr. Bush succeeded Mr. Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new president, a group of senators led by Bob Graham declared:

"There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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 missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Sen. Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Mr. Bush's benefit what he had told Mr. Clinton some years earlier:

"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."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."

Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

"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. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush's opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

And here is Mr. Gore again, in that same year:

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Mr. Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:
Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Byrd: "The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Of course, now that support has magically started to disappear with the typical liberal spin back-paddling , “I didn’t mean what I said….or we were all suckers to Bush’s lies” claptrap. Which begs the question: If Bush is so stupid, as the arrogant democrats have asserted, what are they? Even stupider? Assuming, for arguments sake that Bush lied, (which he didn’t), then he is not as stupid as his critics are who were actually stupid enough to fall for his lie and support the war in Iraq.

Podhoretz then exposes the biggest liar in this whole liberal charade, Joseph Wilson, the husband of the CIA agent, Valerie Plame (you know the woman who was “outed” while not working any clandestine missions, but rather sitting behind a desk and attending Washington cocktail parties). If lying to federal investigators is a crime, as Patrick Fitzgerald insists Scooter Libbey is guilty of, then an even bigger target for indictment is Mr. Wilson himself, as Podhoretz so effectively points out.

Despite Podhoretz’ detail rebuttal to the democrats’ lie about Bush and Iraq, it won’t dissuade any of the sheep who follow the democrats from continuing to echo the same lying bleat. In fact, I doubt they would ever bother to read the article in the first place. Liberals are really good at the art of spin. They never face facts, to do so would spot light the hollowness of their position. They are believers in Hitler’s propagandist, Joseph Goebbels famous statement: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” And they need lies, since they don’t have any real substance other than playing the emotions card.