The Herald (UK)
Washington Post (subscription required unless you go through Google News)
Google News search for related articles.
What they said then:
• "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." -- Vice President Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.
• "Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them." -- Bush, Nov. 3, 2002.
What they say now:
In the briefing room, press secretary Scott McClellan only grudgingly acknowledged what Washington Post reporter Dafna Linzer had written in the morning paper: That the hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq had come to an end. In fact, it came to an end before Christmas
(Both quotes from the Washington Post article above)
So why did we invade Iraq? Isn't that all illegal now? (Except that we won, so we get to say it wasn't.) So we could make it a better place? Except that now the whole place is so violent that we can't guarantee that the elections will happen. Because they were in violation of UN resolutions? Then why didn't we get the UN to agree to go in?
Basically we lied. And we're not apologizing. Bush and his cronies are continuing along like nothing has happened. WTF?
Todays rant brought to you by the Daily Show on Comedy Central "Where more Americans get their news than probably should."