If he now says he was waiting until he had rock-solid evidence (checking, re-checking and checking again) until he released his evidence, you all KNOW that whatever Dem du jour is in first place in the Democrat party, assisted by all the mainstream media, will ask why he committed American troops without rock-solid evidence.
So while it may be easier to advise those questioners to get their heads out of their asses, and while it may get giggles from fraternity boys and high school sophomores, it doesn't answer the question.
So what?
Who in their right mind is going to suggest that we would be better off with Saddam still in charge over there? Bush can say that anyone making that argument is in favor of mass graves, oil money spent on weapons instead of food, and threats against Isreal and other neighboring countries.
Fine, bring that on. I can see Bush's knees quivering over that, for sure.
Well, he used it as one justification to enter Iraq. Not the only one.
But I don't think the justification issue is a killer poison: it is a poison of too much complex thinking at a surface level. The antidote is simple thinking at a deep level. Saddam with his regime were dangerous.
You may say (rightly) he could not have harmed us militarily and he was (rightly) too afraid of the Islamic terrorists to league with them. All that wealth and all that absolute power over a technologically sophisticated system means he had the capability, and certainly the will, to do something very harmful.
His enemies won't complain directly of unnecessarily putting our troops in harm's way. That is the criticism of the antiwar right, a position I respect though disagree with in this instance. No, Democrats will simply play the war is inherently bad card. Bush wanted the war and didn't give peace every possible chance.
It is a position that doesn't resonate.
I thought Powell gave that address to the UN Security Council.
foreverfree