These were all acts of agression justified by the logic of the individuals that committed them. When the logic is rationalized by misleading the public to approve the actions, this is when the problem gets out of hand. This is where the Bush administration made its mistake. If you cannot make a reasoned argument for your actions and have to rely on mistruths to make your case, you are treading on pretty thin ice.
It is going to take a pretty good period of time for Bush and his entourage, plus some honesty, to regain the trust of the public, here and overseas. Trying to weasel out of it by blaming the intelligence community will not do it. A direct apology to the American people and the families who lost love ones in a cooked up war would be a good start.
No, it shouldn't. The morality of a given situation is not determined by whether Everyone Agrees With It. In fact the two have nothing to do with each other.
There was no critic proof way of invading Poland by Germany in the late thirties
And, there was no critic-proof way of resisting Germany in the late thirties, either. Should that "tell me something"? Hell no.
The point being that every action has its critics. Critics are not always right. They can even be completely wrong.
no critic-proof way of destroying the Twin Towers in 9/11.
no critic-proof way of responding by attacking Afghanistan... (there were protests, if you've forgotten). Face it, whether there are critics of an action tells us NOTHING about whether it's right or wrong.
These were all acts of agression justified by the logic of the individuals that committed them.
Yes, and sometimes the logic is correct, sometimes not.
When the logic is rationalized by misleading the public
Who misled the public? About what? (keep in mind that the only "the public" I care about in this context are US citizens..)
If you cannot make a reasoned argument for your actions and have to rely on mistruths to make your case,
Which mistruths? Name them.
It is going to take a pretty good period of time for Bush and his entourage, plus some honesty, to regain the trust of the public, here and overseas.
(a) the public "here" doesn't seem to mind all that much. (b) who the F cares about the public "overseas"? Bush is President of the U.S., not "overseas".
A direct apology
for what?