As the New York Times today admits it incorrectly portrayed President Bush’s words last year on Iraq and the threat of weapons of mass destruction, it seems clearer than ever that what the president did say is being ignored. The result is an inaccurate portrayal of what President Bush stood for in the run-up to the Iraqi war.

In taking a look at the President’s actual words, his arguments in the months before military conflict in Iraq still hold up. Here is the excerpt from his 2003 State of the Union that deals with Iraq:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

The “twelve years ago” point is often forgotten in today’s debate. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait without provocation. He hit Israel with 39 scud missiles without provocation. (People forget about the attacks against innocent Israelis.) He threatened Saudi Arabia without provocation. He started a war, he lost, and he agreed to disarm, and prove to the world that he disarmed.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

But don’t take President Bush’s word for it. Let’s recall what Hans Blix, then-head of the U.N. weapons inspection team, told the U.N. Security Council about the full and complete WMD declaration Iraq was told it had no choice it had to make:

On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.

One might have expected that in preparing the Declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM document S/1999/94 of January1999 and the so-called Amorim Report of March 1999 (S/1999/356). These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited.

While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current "unresolved disarmament issues" and "key remaining disarmament tasks" in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.

They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

Remember: Iraq had no choice but to come clean. And, according to Blix, they didn’t. Back to President Bush:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

This was carefully worded, but clear nonetheless. President Bush made it plain that it wasn’t just good enough for Iraq to say it didn’t have weapons. They had to prove it. And they didn’t. (Remember those 39 scuds at Israel, and the Kuwaiti occupation. Nobody wanted to cross their fingers that it didn’t happen again. They wanted to be sure.)

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

So far, President Bush is going on a combination of facts reported by the U.N., and intelligence from both the U.S. and an ally. It wasn’t just a fact or two, in a vacuum, on which his remarks were hung. It was a mosaic of what was known – and what was not known.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Stop the tape. Remember the U-2 debacle? They clearly didn’t want U.S. intelligence overflights getting a birds-eye view of their activities – activities, perhaps, that included comings and goings over the Syrian border. Is this an activity of a country that wants transparency? Is this what a country does when it has nothing to hide? Is this the way Iraq was following U.N. Resolution 1441? It took weeks – precious weeks – for this controversy to be resolved. Weeks of lost time to a country with a track record of hiding and deception didn’t inspire confidence.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

See information about Saddam’s mass graves. This was a credible threat to the Iraqi people who considered assisting the U.N.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Abu Nidal. Abu al-Zarqawi. Payoffs to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. No one is challenging Saddam’s ties to terrorists. Remember, at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam promised to stay away from these bad guys. He broke that promise, and he broke the cease-fire agreement.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Ah. Sept. 11. The only time some of President Bush’s critics mention Sept. 11, it’s to trump up – lie, actually – that the president linked Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. That never happened. But what the president does say is that the threats we could live with before Sept. 11, 2001, we could no longer tolerate. Saddam was given one last chance – remember Resolution 1441? – to prove he wasn’t a threat. He blew it.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

And that’s the difference between President Bush and many of his critics. The president didn’t want to trust someone who gassed his own people, threw hundreds of thousands into mass graves, invaded Kuwait without provocation, hit Israel with 39 scuds without provocation, and threatened Saudi Arabia with provocation. Others were perfectly willing to trust him.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

Little kids aren’t being thrown into Ba’athist prisons or tortured any more. Anybody want to criticize that?

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

Although, some prefer to look at it this way.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Thirty-four countries, to be exact.

Perhaps this is why most Americans support the effort in Iraq.