Another way to look at this:
"The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war." - Well, the President was most certainly in the lead on this issue, and the primary justifications turned out to be false. Let's not forget the Downing Street Memo. Commonly accepted or not, the intelligence was "sexed up" to some degree in the push for war.
"The Bush administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments." --Valerie Plame exposed from an inside White House leak, authorized by the President to intimidate others who dare speak out - next question.
"Because weapons of mass destruction stockpiles weren't found, Saddam posed no threat." - Was he a threat? Sure. So are bears and coyotes. Was he the most serious or dangerous threat? Not even in the top two...while we're putzing around in Iraq, North Korea and Iran are developing nukes because we don't have the credible military threat to stop them.
"Promoting democracy in the Middle East is a postwar rationalization." - Sure, he may have mentioned it, but it wasn't the emphasis. Watch the speeches and the interviews. You can surely pick out these topics if you try hard, but they were not the initial justification. This is NeoCon doctrine, and Congress would have never authorized war powers based on it.
Its sad how, even as his closest supporters crumble around him, many continue to support the misguided and misled Bush administration. It creeps closer and closer to becoming one of the worst presidencies in history.
Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters.
Ryan did you ever stop to think that all the good news in Iraq happens within the green zone?
Was the mission to take over a few blocks in downtown Baghdad, and the airport? If so – mission accomplished.
You know Ryan, I'm starting to warm up to your sly take on all of this. You wave the flag, cheer the president and move up the career ladder while others are moved down into a 6 foot holes. Pretty smart.
"they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization."
Yea, and except for that Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play.
One additional piece on the pile: the aginers (especially Chris Matthews) continue to trumpet that Bush was wrong about Saddam's involvement with 9/11, despite his late 2002 nationwide press conference where he explicitly said 'we have no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.'
And lest it get lost in the shuffle (long since has, though): Saddam DID HAVE weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological), he had the propensity to use them -- and did, he openly and actively supported terrorist groups, though A-Q (can't spell it) was the least supported, he routinely over many years lit up our warplanes and tried incessantly to shoot them down, he designed and set in motion a plan to assassinate our President, and the Clinton administration declared (and passed by Congress) that overthrowing the regime in Iraq was a national goal.
Commenting by HaloScan
