This is something I never understood either. Bush admin has ample of evidence of Saddam’s plans. Perhaps Bush just wants to move on and avoid the public fight with dems (like that strategy has ever worked). Probably 20 years from now, MSM love Bush (just like they love Ronnie now) and agree that he was right, after all.
“just like they love Ronnie now”
What MSM do you watch/read? Krugman was just called out by his own NYT libby buds for calling Reagan a racist (search for the post on FR)...
At some point - after 2004 elections were over - it was more important for President Bush to have a clear [political] success in Iraq, i.e. “stable and democratic” Iraq, than arguing and reasserting the reasons for going in.
Most Americans are results-oriented - “all is well that ends well”. Bush reasoned that, with time, if Iraq is a success, people won’t care why and how we got into Iraq, and if Iraq is not deemed a success, people also won’t care even if we had undeniable proof that Saddam had nuclear missiles stashed or tankers filled with anthrax...
For all practical purposes, after 2004 for Bush success of the mission in Iraq was more important than re-arguing original case about Saddam’s threat... That was exactly the opposite of what it was for Democrats who needed “Bush lied us into war” argument to support their opposition to the mission and the goals of the mission. To liberals, goals / reasons and outcome have to be inseparable, i.e. “bad war” should end in defeat and have “bad end” (”Vietnam syndrome”), only “good wars” should end in victory...
Probably 20 years from now, MSM love Bush (just like they love Ronnie now) and agree that he was right, after all.
Nope, this crop is a bunch of lazy lairs, that will continue to serve the Democrat party.