I've said that I'm not at all satisfied with the way Bush has run the war. I think he should have listened more to Powell (If you go in, do it with overwhelming force) and less to Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz (We can get this done quickly and cheaply).
But on the issue of Iraq possessing WMD, I don't think one can say Bush was mistaken unless one also says Kerry was mistaken, Al Gore was mistaken, Hillary Clinton was mistaken, the United Kingdom was mistaken, Russia was mistaken, Germany was mistaken, etc....
The disagreement wasn't about whether Iraq had the capacity for building weapons. The disagreement between the U.S. and other nations was whether a military solution was warranted or whether inspections would keep him in check.
I don't think there is evidence that he "manipulated" information. Did he "spin" it? Sure. I think the chances that Bush faked intelligence or suppressed contrary evidence so successfully that he not only fooled his domestic opposition but many foreign intelligence agencies also, to be highly, highly unlikely.
The Clinton Administration believed that Iraq still had the capacity to build WMD. As did non-US intelligence sources. If you want to criticize everybody for being wrong on the intelligence that's entirely fair. However, the practice seems to be to blame "Bush" alone. If you want to blame Bush for being too aggressive or for not giving inspections more of achance, that's fair also. But this whole "Bush lied about WMD" is a sham.
I could find several other things on which to criticize Bush. The "Bush Doctrine" for instance, may well be the stupidest foreign policy ever enacted. As Kerry pointed out, the U.S. always reserved the right to act alone and strike first if we felt it was necessary. There was no need to put it down in writing and piss people off.
I also think Bush has been spending too much money. However, I chalk that up to first-term campaigning. If he were to be elected to a second term (which I find highly unlikely) spending would come way down.
Originally posted by Barcelona:
ggw, have you ever criticized Bush on this board or admitted that he might have been mistaken? Even The Economist has been critical of Bush (even though they supported him at the beginning). You should at least admit that there is a chance that this people were so eager to go to war against Saddam that they might have manipulated information to make the case. You deny this? Don't you see a chance that this might have happened?
