M E M, first of all, RAW is not a media source, it's a liberal-progressive partisan spin site. It exists (like Media Matters and DailyKos)
ONLY to slander Republicans and all conservative media, without the slightest pretense of neutrality.
When will you realize that posting it as a source will
never be taken seriously, by anyone here?
Beyond that, my point is already made, that Bush can't be demonized for the war in Iraq, because
1) Bush called for and went to war on a long list of reasons, including:
(A) Saddam Hussein's non-compliance with the 1991 Gulf War peace treaty,
(B) aggression against his neighbors,
(C) genocide on his own people,
(D) and ejecting U.N. weapons inspectors.
Added to that, (E) Iraq's threat with WMD's, is
only ONE of many reasons to justifiably invade, and all the others remain true and correct. Further, David Kay reported that Iraq had WMD's in development to go into production as soon as U.N. sanctions would have been lifted (as I already stated above) so the WMD's issue is at most only half wrong. So on that list of reasons to invade, President George W. Bush gets at least a 90% on his reasons for war in Iraq.
2) As I also said, Every other nation doing intelligence on Iraq thought Saddam had WMD's already, and even Saddam's own generals believed this. So you can't really blame Bush, or say he "lied" when the most informed people in every nation believed the same thing Bush did.
As I said before, David Kay testified before congress that Iraq's economy was on the verge of collapse, and Saddam's WMD scientists with WMD material would have in desperate economic times to come, become a "nuclear arms bazaar, on sale to the highest bidder". U.S. invasion prevented that.
As far as "considering all the troops that died under his failed leadership", I again refer you to the poll of our military soldiers, that express
>>>>>>INFINITELY<<<<<<<<< more confidence in George W. Bush as commander in chief, rather than Barack Hussein Obama. Not even close.
And they would know, wouldn't they?
