Bush certainly lied to somebody, if only himself. But the evidence for WMDs before the war was certainly sketchy, and it was his favorite pretext for the war. As for that compelling evidence we were supposed to find when we got into Iraq, it sure as hell wasn’t there, nor was there any evidence of Iraq involvement in 9/11. His father’s more cautious approach looks a heck of a lot better in retrospect than W’s original strategy and war aims in Iraq. Compared to the cost of that war, some uncivil debate beforehand seems fairly inexpensive, don’t you think? But Bush was at times as obnoxious as the Democrats always are, but the only real reason we should have avoided speaking our minds then was to avoid undermining the soldiers who were sent over there. But the facts about the war speak for themselves except where the debate was silenced, and that is what “respect for the Presidency” has come to mean. Dissent against government activism has been under attack since 2001. Everything is a crisis, and for every crisis, we’re supposed to listen to what our “leader” tells us and not question his motives or challenge the wisdom of his actions, as if this “leader” is someone with godlike clairvoyance and boundless love for every taxpayer instead of just another insecure social climber, a teleprompter, and a small sampling of DC establishment types. I’m sick and tired of it. The president is just a civil servant who is given entirely too much power.
First of all, if President Bush knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq, which is an absolutely ridiculous assertion, our Troops would have discovered the largest Cache of WMD’s you had ever seen the first week of the War.
Secondly, President Bush NEVER said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. That is a ridiculous LIE promoted by the Left to damage him and the War effort.
That's all I needed to know. Good night.