The report released today by the Senate Committee said that major key pre-war judgments about WMDs in Iraq were "either overstated, or not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting." (Read their conclusions.)
While I do appreciate that they didn't point the finger at Bush (though Carl Levin insists on trying to do so), I still think the Committee is a sham. I have a number of reasons, however, I simply want to look at their conclusions as proof. The Senate Committee has bought the lie of the liberal media that there were no, and are no, WMDs in Iraq. Had they actually looked at the evidence, which is readily available to them (I know I'm not the only with access), their conclusions would have been far different. Do I think the intelligence was completely accurate? Of course not, should we expect it to have been? I do think some of the intelligence was overstated and that we have some major problems in the CIA. However, the idea that the intelligence reporting did not support pre-war judgments is simply a bold faced lie.
On one hand, the Senate Committee is directly lying to us about intelligence reports, on the other, the media continues to ignore WMD findings in Iraq. How does 1.96 tons of radioactive material sound? Sound suspicious? Sound dangerous? Hmmm... let's see... enriched uranium, potential nuclear bombs, sounds like WMDs to me! But hey, Bush lied about there being WMDs in Iraq didn't he? ::wink, wink::

Iraq Confirms U.S. Has Removed Nuclear Material

Past WMD Findings

(Hat tip to the Conservative Dodger Fan for the latest WMD news, even though the Red Sox are the best baseball team.)