I always wondered if the weapons of mass destruction argument against Bush was a more serious version of this. What if Bush had a reason he could not disclose the existence of such weapons and the Democrats knew this.
Since there is a whole list out there, and even in a book of all the wmd's found in Iraq...The only thing wrong with the press mantra of no wmd's found in Iraq was the press's lies about the subject.
I think that is exactly what happened.
I distinctly remember articles about mustard gas being found in Iraq.
I remember articles about weapons being moved to Syria, before the war started.
I think the US had definitive proof about the weapons but there was “actionable intelligence” that they had to hold back because it would have compromised intelligence or security in another area.
Because it does not make sense to me that GWBush goes on television in interviews during the past two years and says, “There were no WMD.” when I remember that there were WMD. I remember feeling reassured and “right” about the war back in 2003.
To say that there were no WMD today, is collective cognitive dissonance.
Bush takes that hit for some HUGE REASON. He takes it, knowing that history will paint him negatively. There is something that he knows that we don’t.
And he must think it is worth it.