Bush's ultimate defense is that he got bad intelligence about wmd. Of course he and Cheney did everything they could to distort the intelligence. It has pretty much come out that the best intelligence that Bush and Cheney tried to suppress from the public was no wmd. For one example. ****** Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
I think it is sort of sad if anyone still really believes Bush did not have good reason to think there were NO wmd. Bush just used wmd as an excuse and was going to do it anyway. Now Bush may regret the war as it was not all candy and chocolates, it has turned into a mess that strengthened Iran, tarnished his legacy and it is not certain that the neo-cons will attain their goals of a friendly Iraq that allows us to have permanent bases and favorable terms for our oil companies. ************* Caught on Tape: Bush Admits WMD Were Irrelevant» On day that the United States invaded Iraq, President Bush said that we were doing so “reluctantly” but that “our purpose was clear” — to get rid of Saddam’s “weapons of mass murder.” (Note: Bush did not say “purposes.” According to Bush, there was only one purpose.) Yesterday on Brit Hume, he said he would have invaded even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. Would have been nice if he’d mentioned this earlier. We’ve got the video evidence: (Quick Time) Full Transcript: 12/14/05: BUSH: I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision. HUME: So, if you had had this — if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call? BUSH: Absolutely. 3/19/03: Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
I think Bush had a rare moment of candor when he commented last week and then realized he had to squash any notion of regret before he got charbroiled.
Is that 300 million dollar shrine (and some books) devoted to promote his greatness still in the works?
he is so disingenuous insinuating that, as the commander-in-chief for 8 years, he was merely a bystander on the sideline, powerless
Bush is OK with killing innocent civilians and families half the time. He only needs to be right every other time when striking out at someone. That means Bush knows before attacks that he will be wrong 50% of the time and is willing to kill anyway. This is from this editorial article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/presidents-kill-people-es_b_145502.html
Since there are estimates as to the percentage of gay people in a population, then I wonder if basso is OK with Bush being willing to kill an additional 40% more innocent homosexuals.
Not having WMDs doesn't make him a war criminal. There were plenty of other reasons for the intervention.
Not ones that would have passed muster with the American people or Congress. That's why WMD's were the reason they used. Recent admissions leave war supporters two choices concerning President Bush: He made a mistake (and a grievous mistake considering the loss of life) or he willfully lied to trick the nation and the Congress into supporting the war on false pretenses. Given what we now know about the intelligence that was presented to Bush and company, they were either criminally negligent and incompetent or just flat criminals. And, in considerably less important news, everyone here who carried their water was a sucker.
