My main concern is what all this means to the war on terror and Islamic extremism. Bush folded too easily on the "no-WMDs" conclusion in Iraq, and never even tried to rebut the "Bush Lied!" canard the Democrats have been harping on for almost five years. And the tendency of Republicans not to defend themselves against character assassination on the part of the left and the MSM has been endemic, including the "leaders" in congress. My sense over much of the last two years has been that if the White House isn't willing to strenuously and deftly defend itself, why should I? Take Peach, for instance...she's done a much better job tracking and documenting Saddam's links to terrorist groups, especially al Qaeda. How hard would it have been for someone at DOD or the White House to simply distill all of her links into a coherent rebuttal to the leftist/MSM pap?
Somewhere over the last two years, GWB's White House has slipped into "lame duck" mode. And, again, it concerns me that a White House and national party that is unwilling to defend itself has lost its ability to defend the west from the threat it faces from Islamic fascists.
Thanks for remembering my interest in this matter, My2Cents.
And I see we are all three of us in agreement. The WH did not defend itself at all against the "Bush lies" mantra and the WMD issues and it will forevermore remain a mystery why.
All it's done is embolden the Democrats to say the most outrageous and untrue things which in turn has delighted the jihadists.
I have a feeling we'll never know the answer to this. It's puzzling and maddening. And many days I wondered why I was bothering to defend a man against charges he wasn't himself defending against.