You Mean There WERE WMD's??????

Here's the first of two stories from non-conservative news sites stating that Bush's rationale for invading Iraq WAS CORRECT. For those of you who haven't figured it out yet here it is: BUSH DIDN'T LIE.

Exhibit A

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html

Here's an excerpt:

“In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.

The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said it appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.”

Then there is this interesting paragraph:

“Dr. Araji said he had no evidence regarding where the equipment had gone. But his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments.”

That means that WMD’s WERE there and would have been seized if we hadn’t dragged this through the U.N.

And speaking of the U.N., here is another bombshell:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/12/wsaddam12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/12/ixworld.html

Here is an excerpt:

“Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction.

The news that Iraq attempted to bribe a top UN official is a key piece of evidence for investigators into the scandal surrounding the oil-for-food program. It proves that Iraq was offering huge sums of cash to influential foreigners in return for political favors.”

Someone please answer this question: Why bribe anybody if there were no weapons of mass destruction?

If George W. Bush were lying about Iraq having WMD’s, why does this story even get past the news editors anywhere? There couldn't have been a reason to bribe anybody IF there weren't any weapons of mass destruction because, according to the Left, Bush lied about it.

And just in case you’re curious, no I won’t be holding my breath as I wait for apologies from Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Howie Dean, etc.