I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the world's biggest Christmas fanatic, aside from giving gifts. I don't put up a tree, I don't decorate, I don't bake cookies and I don't sing Christmas carols (well, not while sober). I don't send out Christmas cards. I don't wear red and green clothing. I don't run down the street shouting, "Merry Christmas!" to everyone I see, like Jimmy Stewart in It's A Wonderful Life.

How outrageously self-centered would I have to be, though, to consider myself "offended" when others do those things?

82% of Americans belong to one Christian denomination or another, according to a 2002 Pew research poll, while only 1% consider themselves athiests. An ABCNEWS/Beliefnet poll conducted the year before showed the number of Christians to be 83%. Only a tiny percentage of non-Christians take offense when the vast majority of Americans don't hide their religion. And why should they? Don't they have a right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, to the "free exercise" of their religion? Yet the loudly-complaining far Left demands that no one be allowed to "offend" them. I have yet to see a Constitutional right to "freedom FROM religion."

In recent years, the attack on public recognition of the major religion in this country has become offensive in itself. More stores are advertising "holiday sales," more organisations are holding "holiday parties" and more people are putting up "holiday trees" every year. Even the Capitol Christmas Tree had come to be called a "holiday tree" since the late 1990s, until House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) forced its offical name to return to normal this year. Fear of giving offense to 1% of the population is causing a great deal of offense among the rest of us. If I lived in a country where the population was more than 80% Muslim, I don't think I'd complain about public celebrations of Ramadan. If I lived in Israel, I wouldn't demand they refer to the menorah as a "holiday candlestick" just for me.

What the hell is a "holiday tree," anyway? What's it for? 

I was recently invited to a "holiday party" by a local Republican group. I will not attend, on the grounds that they didn't specify precisely what holiday they're celebrating. Is it Christmas? Hannukah? St. Lucia's Day? The Feast of St. Nicholas? Portugese Independence Day? Winter Solstice? A Week Before The End Of The Year Day? Baby-Eating Day? (I'm sure the Liberals would believe that.) I could get into a good old-fashioned Saturnalia, but I need time to get my tunic dry-cleaned. I don't celebrate generic holidays. If they aren't important enough for you to name them, they aren't important enough for me to celebrate them with you.

When they're done savaging Christmas, perhaps the militant secularists will go after Easter. How much fun will it be when the Holiday Bunny leaves Holiday baskets full of Holiday candy for the kiddies to find? After the children dye and decorate Holiday eggs, you can hide them and have a Holiday Egg Hunt. Maybe the whole family can watch the Holiday Parade on tv.

How does that sound any more ridiculous than secularising Christmas -- changing a tradition of centuries, celebrated by millions of families, just to appease a tiny, hate-driven minority? Do you think they wouldn't force Bing Crosby to re-record his biggest hit song as "I'm Dreaming of a White Holiday," if they could? Or would the Political Correctness Police have a problem with that, too? After all, there isn't much snow in the South, and children there might feel left out.

No one will make you celebrate Christmas at gunpoint. No one will kidnap you and drag you to a Christmas party, force you to sing Christmas carols off-key or demand that you wish anyone a "Merry Christmas." No one will make you enjoy yourself. You are free to not celebrate, as I am free to celebrate, a holiday that was a part of American society before there was a United States. If I wish you a "Merry Christmas," try not to launch into a diatribe about how I'm forcing religion down your throat.

Maybe I'll put up a Christmas tree, after all... just in case any militant secularists happen by.

As American and Iraqi hopes for Iraq's future continue to bear fruit, the Left has become ever more determined to claim each victory as a defeat, for purely political reasons. The only way for them to regain power, they believe, is to convince America to throw a war we're winning. Again.

Hey, it worked thirty years ago. Why not now?

The "mainstream" media generally reports the only the most negative or spectacular stories, seeming almost gleeful at times in their self-imposed death watch. Why else do you probably know without thinking the approximate number of American military deaths in Iraq, but would need to look up how many have died in Afghanistan? The terrorists, knowing this, try to do something flashy as often as possible -- roadside bombs, kidnappings or beheadings. Nearly every soldier who returns from or writes from Iraq seems shocked at how little of what's really happening there is ever mentioned in the newspapers or TV news. After a constant barrage of negative reporting, media outlets run their biased, weighted, oversampled opinion polls... and report the inevitable results as though they were news.

Think about it, though. Leading a coalition of nations, America toppled a brutal dictator whose regime destabilised the entire Middle East, after twelve years of his violating a cease-fire agreement with us. Government officials and influential people in the only major countries that declined to help were, as it turns out, in bed with the dictator all along. His mass graves are no longer being filled, his rape rooms and other violations of human rights are now shut down, his secret illegal weapons research stopped, and his sponsorship and training of terrorists are ended. Our military has performed above and beyond expectations, and the enemy only survives by hiding in and striking from the shadows. As time goes on, they are losing the ability to do even that. Yet to hear the Left tell the tale, the war has somehow failed.

A council representing all Iraqis was appointed to write an interim constitution; under that constitution Iraqis held their first free elections to select an interim government to draft their permanent constitution. The constitution was ratified by the overwhelming majority of Iraqi voters, and under that constitution they are about to elect their own government. Iraqis are free to debate the issues in public and vote for their own leaders for the first time in history. The world's oldest civilisation is the world's youngest democracy. Yet if you listen to the Left's spin, Iraq's future is somehow bleak.

Terrorists flocked to Iraq to prevent democracy from taking root there. That should give any reasonable person a hint that democracy in the Middle East is bad for terrorists... and what's bad for terrorists is good for the rest of us. They joined forces with the few thousand Sunnis who preferred a tyrant's rule to democracy. Beaten and demoralised, the "legitimate" resistance -- though no one who fights to enslave an entire nation can be called legitimate -- is now suing for peace. That will leave only the terrorists, backed by Syria, Iran and other al-Qaeda supporters, fighting the joint US and Iraqi forces. Until they, too, are beaten, we cannot and should not withdraw. Yet the Left insists that the US ought to abandon the Iraqis, even as their would-be conquerors are faltering.

Already hints of democratic reform -- baby steps, in some cases, but all in the right direction -- have swept through Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. The cesspool of tyranny, in which terrorism freely breeds, is finally being drained. None of this would have taken place without the fall of Saddam and the birth of democracy in Iraq. Yet the Left insists that the anti-democratic forces are somehow winning somehow.

Libya has surrendered its entire WMD program, which was far closer to building a nuclear weapon than we had previously supposed. The nuclear weapons proliferation ring headed by Abdul Qadeer Khan has been exposed. The festering corruption within the United Nations, which leads right up to the family of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, has been uncovered. The leaders of Iran and North Korea understand that we mean it when we say they will not be allowed to posess nuclear weapons. Countries around the globe that supported terrorism now understand that we are serious about halting that support. All of this sprang directly from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Yet the Left complains that we aren't "playing fair" with those sworn to destroy us and our way of life at all costs.

This isn't a game. We're not playing. This is a battle for the future of our entire civilisation. Do we want to give in to the demands of terrorists and their sponsor nations by running away from Iraq before the job is done, or will we push back against the Islamofascist tide that even now threatens to engulf Europe?

The question finally came to a head when Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) called for the US to withdraw from Iraq. The Republicans called his bluff, and that of most Democrats, by forcing a vote on immediate withdrawal. The measure was defeated 403-3. Keep this in mind: everything Democrats have said about bringing the troops home from Iraq right away is just political rhetoric. (Well, except for those three idiots who voted to run away. They really mean it.) Even those calling for a specific timetable are only trying to claim credit in advance for the staged withdrawal that the President has long endorsed.

"Iraq's military, police, and border forces have begun to take on broader responsibilities. Eventually, they must be the primary defenders of Iraqi security, as American and coalition forces are withdrawn," Bush said in May 2004. Such a transfer of responsibility can only happen as the Iraqi forces train up to the task, and not on an artificial schedule imposed by politicians maneuvering for power half a world away. Common sense should tell anyone that informing the terrorists still fighting us in Iraq that we will leave on a certain date will only give them hope, and a great propaganda victory. I can just see the al-Jazeera headlines. "Great Satan Defeated! America Runs Away! Bin Laden Was Right -- They Can't Take It!"

Democrats know as well as anyone that we need to finish the fight in Iraq. They know we're winning. However, they also know that publicly acknowledging the truth about Iraq means defeat for them in 2006. They need America to lose Iraq, and suffer setbacks in the War on Terror, in order to win an election.

And, sadly, that's more important to some of them than any other consideration.

It is often said that travel broadens the mind, but I'm not entirely convinced that's true. Instead, I believe that travel actually clears the mind, allowing us to return home with a fresh perspective on old problems and a readiness to embrace new challenges. It allows us to discover, if we're inclined to self-examination, a new love of home and what it means to us.

It is all too easy, I suppose, to be overwhelmed by the lure of the new. It's in our nature to want to explore different places, view strange horizons, and taste all that other cultures have to offer. For Americans more than most other people, I think, a visit to other parts of the world has all of that, in addition to the lure of the old.

On a recent trip to Spain, I was as drawn as anyone to the older sections of Madrid and the small towns of the countryside. The twisting streets only fit for walking, the weathered, time-etched churches, the trendy new shops and bars housed in buildings raised when America was still a young nation all seemed to cast a sort of spell. I was moved by the almost untouched wilderness of the Gredos Mountains, through which Celts, Romans, kings and Conquistadors alike marched without the land even seeming to notice their passage. I was impressed by the generosity and friendliness of all the Spaniards (and Portugese) I met.

However... as much as I loved traveling to Spain, and as much fun as I had, no moment gave me quite the rush of emotion as the feel of the plane's wheels leaving the ground when I began my journey home.

It's not because I had difficulty speaking the language that I looked forward to going home, nor was it due to simple unfamiliarity with the country. It wasn't due to the different food, either. On the contrary, the challenges of getting along in a foreign land were exciting and entertaining, to myself as well as many of the Spaniards with whom I conversed. My mime repertoire has expanded to the point where moving to New York City, painting my face white, and doing the "Stuck In A Box" and "Walking Against The Wind" routines for donations is now a fallback career choice.

I once had to mime getting a blister to a clerk at a pharmacy while looking for bandages. Walking all over a city is hard work. When I needed to wash clothes, I stunned several life-long Madrid residents by finding (traveling via bus and sore feet) a self-serve landromat -- a thing which few Madrilenos had supposed even existed in their city. As for the food, I nearly bought a whole pig's leg to bring home, so I wouldn't miss the jamon serrano too soon. I'm sure my fellow passengers wouldn't have minded my boarding the plane with a pig's leg slung over my shoulder like Errol Flynn carrying a deer in Robin Hood.

As exciting and different as other places in the world might be -- and they are -- I will always only have one home, and that's the USA. Here is the place generations of my fellow-countrymen struggled to reach, to seize the opportunities offered -- then and now -- by life in America. I loved traveling to Spain, and look forward to seeing other parts of Europe and the rest of the world, but I know that I'll always be eager to return home, where I belong by choice.

With the world to choose from, I choose this place. I wouldn't condemn my descendants to retrace the journey my ancestors were forced to take by high taxes, struggling economies and oppressive governments -- all of which still exist in the places they fled, though the names have changed.

I met some Americans eager to apply for dual citizenship and move to Europe, drawn by the older, different culture and atmosphere. That's their decision, but could not be mine. I met even more Spaniards, however, who seemed eager to learn about and even come to America... especially after my setting the record straight on all too many issues upon which they've been misled.

When our Liberals tell us that all Europeans hate us, I have to wonder whether they simply hate watching Americans bashing their own country in order to curry favor with foreigners. For too long their only sources of information about this country have been Liberal movies, Liberal newspapers and Liberal visitors, all of which frequently disparage and deride the American culture and people.

As the internet culture continues to gain ground overseas, we will be able to exchange more information without the filters that have been in place for so long. The days of Liberal information control will finally come to an end, as long as we keep the United Nations from taking control of the internet. And I couldn't be happier to throw a few spadefuls of earth on the grave of Leftist disinformation from time to time, simply by not hesitating to speak my mind.

Click the image to open a larger version.

Click on the pictures below to open a larger version.

 
 
 
 

Click the image to open a larger version.

I'll be on vacation in Spain for the next two weeks, and will probably not be doing any serious blogging.

The Paris riots, well into their second week at this point, are the inevitable result of Socialism and multiculturalism run amuck. What else can one expect when Leftist policies prevail, racial division replaces political debate, and angry, largely unemployed subcultures are created in the name of "fairness?" French Socialism and reluctance to assimilate the growing Muslim population are the underlying causes of the spreading violence. A society with enclaves of resentful, culturally-segregated groups of people who are not held responsible for their own lives is a recipe for disaster. The recent events in Paris should serve as a warning to all Americans: stop the drift towards multiculturalism and Socialism before it's too late.

Multiculturalism had its roots in the Left's response to the civil rights movement of the 1960's. When you can't segregate populations by law, you persuade them to segregate themselves. The trend continues today with the Left's insistence that Hispanic immigrants should "celebrate their diversity" instead of celebrating being American. America was founded upon immigration, and drew strength from blending elements of various cultures into the mix, not separating them.

Whoever first coaxed people -- some of whom could trace their American ancestry back to the Revolution -- into wearing clothing, naming their children and even celebrating artificial holidays based on some mythical pan-African culture was a marketing genius. Democrats, more of whom voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Republicans, rushed to cast the blame for this subcultural seclusion on their political foes. Race pimps and hatemongers continue to feed the resentment of people who voluntarily isolate themselves from the mainstream, telling them they're being oppressed. The victim culture has taken on a life of its own.

Whenever a black person works hard to make a successful life for him or herself without playing on or pandering to victimhood, the multiculturalists show their true colors, as it were. Condoleezza Rice, for instance, was Provost of Stanford University and National Security Advisor before she was chosen to be Secretary of State -- America's representative to the world. In her current position, she replaced Colin Powell, who had previously been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- the highest military position within the Department of Defense. Liberals have reviled both for not being "black enough," calling Rice "Aunt Jemima" and Powell "Uncle Tom."

Maryland's Lt. Governor Michael Steele has also been called "Uncle Tom" as well as "Sambo" for not embracing the subculture of eternal black victimhood pushed by the Left. Protesters even threw Oreo cookies at him during a debate. That's the end result of multiculturalism for you -- throwing food at people who don't toe the line on race-based politics, shouting them down with childish antics, not even allowing them to speak.

Socialism is the government taking over responsibility for feeding, housing and clothing you, managing your health care and retirement, telling you where to live and how, even raising your children. Socialist governments turn productive, responsible citizens into helpless infants. In order to pay for all of that care, the government increases the tax burden on its most productive citizens and corporations, reducing economic growth and forcing businesses to reduce the workforce. This, of course, increases the number of citizens dependant on government assistance, which increases the cost of caring for them. The purpose of a Socialist government is to perpetuate the government and increase its control.

When people are taught to revel in being cultural outsiders, they are bound to feel inferior and resentful towards the majority. That's what the Left wants. When responsibility for their own lives and decisions is removed, people also tend to feel inferior and resentful. That's what the Left wants. When a critical mass of isolated, resentful people is reached, the resulting explosion might tear the entire society apart. That's what the Left wants. We must take steps to avoid the impending dual train wreck of multiculturalism and Socialism, before it's too late.

In a move supposed to promote more "transparency," Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) recently invoked a rarely-used rule to force the Senate to close its doors for a short time, kicking out the reporters and barring all non-Senators from a secret discussion on pre-war Iraq intelligence. How a closed-door secret session increases openness in government remains a mystery to all but Harry Reid.

After the secret session, Democrats strutted before the cameras, bragging how they had forced the Republicans to move ahead with yet another inquiry into the use of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq. The media, desperate for any kind of Democrat victory, ate it up. No one even mentioned that the move to phase two of the investigation was already scheduled for this month... something every Democrat serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee already knew.

Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), the Senate Majority Leader, was rightly upset over the literal hijacking of the Senate for a publicity stunt. It's the same tactic the terrorists use in Iraq to bury good news... no matter how much progress is made there, a single hand grenade tossed into a marketplace crowd will dominate the headlines for the day. So what was really behind this prank?

As I see it, the move was pre-planned as the Democratic response to the anticipated indictment of Karl Rove. Democrats and Liberals desperately hoped that Rove would be indicted for intentionally exposing covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. He presumably did this to punish her husband, Joe Wilson, for telling the "truth" about Nigerian uranium.

Wilson was sent to Niger on Plame's recommendation, specifically to debunk "this crazy report," as she put it, that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium. Liberals and Democrats believe, no matter how unreasonable it is, that Karl Rove deliberately exposed a secret agent out of sheer vindictiveness. The indictment of Rove by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was supposed to lead to another one-way debate on how "Bush Lied!" as a kickoff to the '06 campaign season. After all, that worked so well for the Democrats in '04. (Campaign seasons, like Christmas sales, seem to start earlier every year.)

Only... it was Wilson who lied about the uranium buy attempt, which did take place after all (as he noted in his book, yet omitted from all his interviews). His wife's identity wasn't being actively concealed, and she hadn't been stationed overseas in at least five years -- the two conditions necessary to make "exposing" her a crime. Neither Rove nor anyone else was indicted for "outing" her, which -- as she was not a covert agent -- could not have even been done in the first place. "Fitzmas" was what the Angry Left dubbed the fabulous day that, in their fantasies, the entire Bush administration would be marched out of the White House in handcuffs. Well, Fitzmas fizzled... and Reid apparently never got the memo to put the followup on hold.

The "Bush Lied!" meme has been laid to rest several times before, but -- perhaps in keeping with the recent Halloween season -- the Left has brought it back from the grave. The Robb-Silberman Commission report filed in 2005 "found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs." The 2004 Butler Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, the British investigation, found no evidence of "deliberate distortion" of the intelligence material or of "culpable negligence". The Senate Select Committee Report on Intelligence in 2004 "did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." Well, if the Left doesn't get the conclusion they want, they simply claim it's all a lie and ask the same questions again... and again... and again.

So here's a handy little quiz for you. Below are just 21 statements made before Saddam's overthrow by US government and other officials about his weapons of mass destruction. Can you pick out which statements were deliberate lies, and which were merely based on faulty information (as the "Bush Lied!" crowd claims any statements by Democrats must have been)? Who said the following?

1. "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

2. "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."

3. "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

4. "One bottleneck for Tabun production is the availability of precursors. Iraq may have retained up to 191 tonnes of NaCN [potassium cyanide] and up to 140 tonnes of DMA.HCl [dimethylamine hydrochloride]."

5. "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

6. "In total, at least 300 to 350 R-400 and R-400A bombs remained unaccounted for by UNSCOM."

7. "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

8. "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country."

9. "We begin with a 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, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

10. "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."

11. "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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

12. "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." 

13. "A document submitted by Iraq in February 2003 outlining the production of Clostridium perfringens [gas gangrene], did not add any detail to previous Iraqi declarations. No evidence to support the declared destruction of the agent was provided."

14. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

15. "There was 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 that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

16. "Based on its estimate of the amounts of various types of media unaccounted for, UNSCOM estimated that the quantities of additional undeclared agent that potentially could have been produced were: 3,000 - 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 - 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent."

17. "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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."

18. "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." 

19. "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" 

20. "There are 550 Mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for since 1998. The mustard filled shells account for a couple of tonnes of agent while the aerial bombs account for approximately 70 tonnes."

21. "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Ready for the answers? Some of them may surprise you.

1. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), 23 January 2003
2. French President Jacques Chirac, 16 October 2002
3. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, 1 February 1998
4. The United Nations (UNMOVIC), 6 March 2003
5. President Bill Clinton, 17 February 1998
6. The United Nations (UNMOVIC), 6 March 2003
7. Al Gore, 23 September 2002
8. President George W. Bush, 7 October 2002
9. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), 19 September 2002
10. Al Gore, 23 September 2002
11. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), 10 October 2002
12. Senator John Edwards (D-NC), 10 October 2002
13. The United Nations (UNMOVIC), 6 March 2003
14. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), 27 September 2002
15. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), 10 October 2002
16. The United Nations (UNMOVIC), 6 March 2003
17. Letter signed by Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN), Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) and others, 6 December 2001
18. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), 27 September 2002
19. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, 18 February 1998
20. The United Nations (UNMOVIC), 6 March 2003
21. Senator John Edwards (D-NC), 24 February 2002

Quotes taken from "Words of Mass Destruction" from Snopes.com, "If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People" from RightWingNews.com and the 6 March 2003 UNMOVIC report "Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes."

UPDATE: More quotes from the Left recalled by Sister Toljah. How these people can claim, while keeping a straight face, that President Bush lied about WMDs is beyond me. No wonder Liberal politicians and Liberal actors have such a tight alliance.