rom VP Cheney speech this week before the American Enterprise Institute:

"Events leading to the fall of Saddam Hussein are fresh in memory, and do not need recounting at length.

Yes, the lies do need recounting.

Every measure was taken to avoid a war. But it was Saddam Hussein himself who made war unavoidable. He had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. He bore a deep and bitter hatred for the United States. He cultivated ties to terrorist groups.

Lie. Does he mean there was no link to al-Quada you mean?

He built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction. He refused all international demands to account for those weapons.

Twelve years of diplomacy, more than a dozen Security Council resolutions, hundreds of UN weapons inspectors, and even strikes against military targets in Iraq--all of these measures were tried to compel Saddam Hussein's compliance with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. All of these measures failed. Last October, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Last November, the UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences in the event Saddam Hussein did not fully and immediately comply. When Saddam Hussein failed even to comply then, President Bush, on March 17th, gave him and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq. Saddam's decision to defy the world was among the last he made as the dictator of that country.

The UN or the World did not approve an invasion of Iraq.

I have watched for more than a year now as President Bush kept the American people constantly informed of the dangers we face,

You mean give the American people a false picture of the immediate threat from Iraqi WMDs.

and of his determination to confront those dangers.

Then why did he prevent the FBI from investigating Saudi connection to terrorist prior to 9-11? Why did he under fund federal law enforcement agencies prior to 9-1l and still under fund them?

There was no need for anyone to speculate what the President was thinking; his words were clear, and straightforward,

No they were not clear and straightforward,. HE LIED!

and understood by friend and enemy alike. When the moment arrived to make the tough call--when matters came to the point of choosing, and the safety of the American people was at stake--

By deploying troops to Iraq, he put the US military at grave risk should North Korea attack the South Korea.

President Bush acted decisively, with resolve, and with courage.

Yes, he sent someone else sons and daughter to fight. Remember, he went AWOL during the Vietnam war. Not much courage on his part.

Now the regime of Saddam Hussein is gone forever. And at a safe remove from the danger, some are now trying to cast doubt upon the decision to liberate Iraq.

Is he calling those who are asking questions about the lies, cowards? Of course, he is.

The ability to criticize is one of the great strengths of our democracy. But those who do so have an obligation to answer this question: How could any responsible leader have ignored the Iraqi threat?..

Easy. Just add up the $100 billion cost of the war and who knows how much for Nation Building.

...The NIE declared--quote: "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of UN Resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions. If left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." End quote

Here he answers his own question about ignoring the "Iraqi threat". The key words are "this decade".

Those charged with the security of this nation could not read such an assessment and pretend that it did not exist.

They didn't ignore it. The CIA, DOD, and State Department didn't have any intelligence to ignore regarding WMDs in Iraq.

Ignoring such information, or trying to wish it away, would be irresponsible in the extreme. And our President did not ignore that information--he faced it.

He faked it, you mean.

He sought to eliminate the threat by peaceful, diplomatic means and, when all else failed, he acted forcefully to remove the danger.

He attacked in March because the whether would be too hot for an invasion in July. What was the rush, given there was almost no intelligence indicating that Iraq had any large quantities of chemical weapons? Why were deplete uranium shells used by US tanks to destroy the old Iraqi armored vehicles and tanks? Was it that the faked British documents about Iraq' alleged nuke program going to come to the attention of the American publics?

Consider another passage from last October's National Intelligence Estimate; it reported--quote: "all key aspects--the R&D, production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive [biological weapons] program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War." End quote.

Remember, we were dealing here with a regime that had already killed thousands of people with chemical weapons. Against this background, to disregard the NIE's warnings would have been irresponsible in the extreme. And our President did not ignore that information--he faced it, and acted to remove the danger...

...Critics of the liberation of Iraq must also answer another question: what would that country look like today if we had failed to act?

The so-called critics to not have to any answer questions from a liar like VP Cheny.

If we had not acted, Saddam Hussein and his sons would still be in power. If we had not acted, the torture chambers would still be in operation; the prison cells for children would still be filled; the mass graves would still be undiscovered; the terror network would still enjoy the support and protection of the regime; Iraq would still be making payments to the families of suicide bombers attacking Israel; and Saddam Hussein would still control vast wealth to spend on his chemical, biological, and nuclear ambitions...

Yet, no WMDs have been found. Maybe So-Damn didn't spend so much on WMD programs?

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.18111/news_detail.asp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------