Althouse: "He left the presidency very comfortable with his record. I think that’ll carry through into the release of information from it."

April 21, 2014

"He left the presidency very comfortable with his record. I think that’ll carry through into the release of information from it."

"I think he believes his actions were justified and that the records will demonstrate that."

He = George W. Bush, who's chosen to be very liberal in the release of documents from his presidential archive.

75 comments:

Mark O said...: Compare and contrast. You have 3 hours to finish and turn in your blue books.; 4/21/14, 12:25 PM
PB said...: I love that he makes liberal's heads explode.; 4/21/14, 12:31 PM
tim maguire said...: People of integrity can afford to be.; 4/21/14, 12:37 PM
Rumpletweezer said...: Although he did many things that aggravated me, I never doubted that he was an honorable man trying to do the right thing. His openness only confirms that opinion. The contrast with his predecessor and his successor is stark.; 4/21/14, 12:44 PM
Sam L. said...: As opposed to those who don't...; 4/21/14, 12:47 PM
Brent said...: What a contrast to the Clinton administration, which is just now - 14 years after Bill and two-fer Hillary left office (!) -releasing stuff! The Clinton's are always playing politics with the lives of Americans. The saddest thing in the entire world is that there are Americans willing to give their lives and families over to them again.; 4/21/14, 1:06 PM
damikesc said...: People are realizing that Bush was hardly the worst President of recent history and that character does matter in leadership; 4/21/14, 1:29 PM
LYNNDH said...: Figures, just fits the man.; 4/21/14, 1:30 PM
Bill, Republic of Texas said...: PB Reader said...
I love that he makes liberal's heads explode.

4/21/14, 12:31 PM

But he doesn't. I don't remember the last time a leftist admitted an error and adjusted their opinions. They just ignore unwelcomed information and just keep telling themselves the same bullshit.

Look at the list for Obama. Huge support to the .01%, cronies prospering everywhere, bailouts, least transparent admin ever, attacks the press, unchecked and creepy spying on US citizens, unregulated killing US citizens and politicized bureaucracy. Not a peep from the leftest.; 4/21/14, 2:09 PM
mikee said...: There was an article in the Austin TX paper on or about the day of GWBush's first inauguration that quoted a supporter of his saying that the country would really "appreciate" Bush as president.

At the time, I took it to mean that after 8 years of Clinton, Bush would be a difference for the better and it would be apparent to all.

Now I look back and realize that I do appreciate the Bush years. I understood everything he said, I did not have to parse his speeches to determine what he had actually promised versus what I thought was planned.

And compared to the bookends of Clinton and Obama, Bush's 8 years will look like a golden era of US prestige and success worldwide in decades to come.

I appreciate Bush. Hell, I miss him.; 4/21/14, 2:16 PM
mikee said...: There was an article in the Austin TX paper on or about the day of GWBush's first inauguration that quoted a supporter of his saying that the country would really "appreciate" Bush as president.

At the time, I took it to mean that after 8 years of Clinton, Bush would be a difference for the better and it would be apparent to all.

Now I look back and realize that I do appreciate the Bush years. I understood everything he said, I did not have to parse his speeches to determine what he had actually promised versus what I thought was planned.

And compared to the bookends of Clinton and Obama, Bush's 8 years will look like a golden era of US prestige and success worldwide in decades to come.

I appreciate Bush. Hell, I miss him.; 4/21/14, 2:16 PM
MadisonMan said...: Huge support to the .01%, cronies prospering everywhere, bailouts, least transparent admin ever, attacks the press, unchecked and creepy spying on US citizens, unregulated killing US citizens and politicized bureaucracy.

And $4/gallon gas.; 4/21/14, 2:39 PM
Michael K said...: Bush was an honest man, as were Cheney and Rumsfeld. The contrast gets larger every day with the present regime. I didn't agree with Bush on a lot, especially domestic policy, but I knew his motives.; 4/21/14, 2:42 PM
Matt Sablan said...: When the sequel is this bad, the original cast feels pretty confident too.; 4/21/14, 2:45 PM
Robert Cook said...: Many criminals think their actions are justified. No doubt Obama does, as well.; 4/21/14, 2:50 PM
FleetUSA said...: What a difference compared to the secrecy still surrounding Kennedy's, Clinton's, and probably will continue well into the future decades for BHO.; 4/21/14, 4:25 PM
jr565 said...: So we can know pretty quickly whether 9/11 was an inside job.
On a side note, I was having a discussion about the missing airliner and the makings of conspiracies and conversation turned to 9/11. Where it was revealed that the boyfriend of my friend is a Truther. And he's STILL on about it.
Some people will believe anything.; 4/21/14, 4:38 PM
Marty Keller said...: "PB Reader said...

I love that he makes liberal's heads explode."

Although it's like shooting fish in a bowl, I still enjoy telling my prog friends how proud I was to vote for W. I can report that their heads do indeed explode.

(It's as much fun as reminding them that W. actually beat the Goricle in Florida, faux weeping and wailing about the Supreme Court notwithstanding.); 4/21/14, 4:39 PM
Drago said...: Robert Cook: "Many criminals think their actions are justified."

Well, since you're a typical leftist who simply makes up crimes supposedly committed by your political enemies ("October Surprise"), why should anyone, anywhere give credence to anything you say?; 4/21/14, 4:52 PM
Jaq said...: "criminals"

A criminal to a lefty is somebody who did something that a lefty would not have done had they won the election. That is why lefties love show trials and rubber stamp parliaments.; 4/21/14, 5:13 PM
Fandor said...: Think if Gore had been elected instead of Bush in 2000. He would have opted to give bin Laden carbon credits and look the other way.

(I'm saying this in jest, but I'm not trying to diminish the scope of the tragedy of 9/11. I was PROUD of George Bush when he stood with that megaphone and said, "The people who knocked down these buildings will be hearing from us soon".
They certainly did.
A President Gore would have been as aggressive as President Obama…and carbon credits.); 4/21/14, 5:15 PM
The Godfather said...: I liked and still like GWB, and I think he did a good job as president. That's not to say he didn't screw up some things. For example, he saw that there were problems with the secondary home mortgage market, at least the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac part of it, but when Frank and Dodd and the rest of the Democrats opposed reforms, he dropped the issue. When the inevitable happened (which it always does, have you noticed?), the Democrats were able to blame Bush for the consequences of the Democrats' policies. Another example: Bush accepted the advice that Iraq could be pacified with limited commitment of troops, and he waited far too long to correct that error, by which time public support for the war had been irreversibly eroded. Of course, it was Obama who blew the status of forces agreement, but Bush had created the situation that made it politically profitable for Obama to do so. These were serious errors, but overall his record looks so much better that his successor's that I almost feel I'm nit-picking to mention them.

HOWEVER, let us please not delude ourselves into thinking that America is ready for another Bush presidency. Jeb's a great guy, but his timing is all wrong. Maybe some day it will be Pat's turn, but not soon.

Are there any Tafts around?; 4/21/14, 5:18 PM
gk1 said...: Btw, when will Obama release his college transcripts and papers he wrote during college days? We knew how much potato salad G.W ate during his Air National Guard stint and his gpa. When will we see Obama's?; 4/21/14, 5:27 PM
Gahrie said...: History will favor President Bush over his enemies, foriegn and domestic.; 4/21/14, 5:34 PM
Tim said...: Maybe Obama won't release his grades because he never took any classes? Anyone seen or heard from anyone in any of his classes? Three different schools? 11 years of(allegedly)higher ed?; 4/21/14, 6:08 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Well, since you're a typical leftist who simply makes up crimes supposedly committed by your political enemies ("October Surprise"), why should anyone, anywhere give credence to anything you say?"

Frankly, Drago, I don't give a damn if those relaxing in the safety of their own delusions* give credence to anything I say. I say what I say because it is true and it pleases me to say it.

*(Spot the allusion! Extra points if you spot the second one! It's fun to play!); 4/21/14, 6:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Fandor said: "A President Gore would have been as aggressive as President Obama…and carbon credits.)"

You mean, Gore would have actually gotten bin Laden instead of invading Iraq?; 4/21/14, 7:01 PM
Steve M. Galbraith said...: Awful president; good man.

Frankly, I'd prefer it the other way around.

If I had to choose.; 4/21/14, 7:16 PM
Heyooyeh said...: What a great guy. His administration caused the deaths of thousands thanks to their reckless planning, rather than only four.

Benghazi!!; 4/21/14, 7:18 PM
Carter Wood said...: I do not forgive Bush for throwing Scooter Libby under the bus. Bush's moral preening caused many of his loyalists great, unjustified trouble.

There's so much more to dislike: Deficit spending, the crap about compassionate conservatism, Harriet Meiers, that self-serving narcissist Collin Powell.

But I'd take Bush over Obama in a heartbeat.; 4/21/14, 7:25 PM
MadisonMan said...: I am not a fan of many things that Bush did. The Federal Govt exploded in size under his watch (TSA, for example). He signed the wretched USA PATRIOT act.

I think it would be fun to have a beer with him, though, and talk about yard work. Because he's a decent person. I can't imagine doing that with Obama, whose vocal mannerisms are nails-on-the-chalkboard to me.

(I'm pretty sure Bush doesn't drink beer anymore, though.); 4/21/14, 7:36 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: The denial is strong on this thread. Bush is Hoover.; 4/21/14, 7:47 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: The Godfather said...

Are there any Tafts around?

Calvin Coolidge is survived by a granddaughter, three great-grandchildren and two great-great-grandchildren. Somebody should look 'em up.; 4/21/14, 8:04 PM
glenn said...: GB made one big mistake. He didn't send the air force right after 9-11.; 4/21/14, 8:07 PM
Big Mike said...: The denial is strong on this thread. Bush is Hoover.

If so then Obama is not FDR.; 4/21/14, 8:50 PM
Gahrie said...: Anyone seen or heard from anyone in any of his classes? Three different schools? 11 years of(allegedly)higher ed?

They all knew him as Barry Sotero an exchange student from Indonesia, so no one paid attention to him.; 4/21/14, 8:59 PM
Original Mike said...: "On a side note, I was having a discussion about the missing airliner and the makings of conspiracies and conversation turned to 9/11. Where it was revealed that the boyfriend of my friend is a Truther. And he's STILL on about it. Some people will believe anything."

Truthers are lurking in the most surprising places. There's one on this thread.; 4/21/14, 9:05 PM
The Godfather said...: @Tyrone Slothrop, thanks, a Coolidge (as much like Calvin as possible, that is) would be great, of course. A female Coolidge would match Hillary's primary qualification for the presidency, and (I guess) with a lot less baggage.; 4/21/14, 9:40 PM
Rusty said...: AReasonableMan said...
The denial is strong on this thread. Bush is Hoover.

Still. It's better than your Obama is christ.; 4/21/14, 9:42 PM
CWJ said...: Heyooyeh wrote -

"What a great guy. His administration caused the deaths of thousands thanks to their reckless planning, rather than only four."

As long a you're playing this game, add all of the post-2008 US and NATO Afghanistan deaths plus all the mid-east deaths that can be laid at Obama's feet due to his feckless foreign policy to that "only four."

Your game, not mine! But if you're going to play, you should at least know how to keep score.

.; 4/21/14, 10:31 PM
richard mcenroe said...: The fact that Bush was a decent man and a better president than the current "leader" inflicted on us does not amount to a recommendation for Jeb Bush. Family dynasties of whatever faction and bureaucratic mandarinates immune to discharge or accountability are always the precursor to the death of liberty.; 4/21/14, 10:52 PM
Drago said...: Robert Cook: "Frankly, Drago, I don't give a damn if those relaxing in the safety of their own delusions* give credence to anything I say."

You are utterly, completely full of shite.

Hearing that upsets you.

Small wonder.; 4/21/14, 10:56 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: He left America uncomfortable with him and hating the GOP.

He called me a racist for opposing his immigration scheme.; 4/21/14, 11:03 PM
cubanbob said...: The denial is strong on this thread. Bush is Hoover."

It helps to read history. Hoover was a progressive. FDR ran in 32 as a Republican in all but name. After he was elected he took Hoover's progressive RFC and put it on steroids.; 4/21/14, 11:14 PM
RecChief said...: "You mean, Gore would have actually gotten bin Laden instead of invading Iraq?"

Hey, in case you didn't know, waterboarding was instrumental in finding Bin Laden so Biden could claim "GM is alive(but not GM owners) and Bin Laden is dead"; 4/21/14, 11:21 PM
gk1 said...: I can remember when some of the "realist" were assuring us conservative types the press would at some point do its job and provide much needed skepticism to the Obama presidency, since he would be safely re-elected and they needed their credibility back. What happened? Do we have to watch the press go down on Obama for 8 straight years?; 4/22/14, 12:02 AM
Anonymous said...: There are a lot of policies that Bush implemented and did a terrible job of.

But it's tough to deny that he's a decent human being and tried to do whatever he thought was best.

God Bless George W. Bush.; 4/22/14, 12:48 AM
Annie said...: heyooyeh, you better go check the stats on the deaths and injuries suffered in Afghanistan under obama. They are a helluva lot more as in a devastating number, than under Bush -- not to mention Obama tying our troops hands in a war zone causing said destruction. Then count up those drone deaths with double-taps across the ME.
Add that to the lies and coverup of Benghazi and SEAL team 6 (funny that..those who were sent to kill bin laden wound up dead too. Blood price is a thing in islam.); 4/22/14, 12:57 AM
Robert Cook said...: Drago:

"Hearing that upsets you."

Hahahahaha!

Well, if it pleases you to think so....; 4/22/14, 5:00 AM
Heyooyeh said...: @CJW

Ok, add them up.

The point is the disaster that was Iraq gets a shrug from everyone here as they fondly remember "nice guy" Bush. He fucked up, his people acted like there was no need to plan effectively for the post-invasion period, and countless humans died as a result -- eviscerate him as you do Obama for Benghazi.; 4/22/14, 5:56 AM
Jaq said...: " I say what I say because it is true and it pleases me to say it."

"Words mean exactly what I wish them to mean, no more, no less"

Spot the allusion!; 4/22/14, 6:39 AM
Robert Cook said...: "As long a you're playing this game, add all of the post-2008 US and NATO Afghanistan deaths plus all the mid-east deaths that can be laid at Obama's feet due to his feckless foreign policy to that 'only four.'"

CWJ...who suggests that Obama is any less a war criminal, any less a mass murderer than Bush?

(If there is someone you can point to making such suggestions, they're wrong.); 4/22/14, 6:51 AM
Michael K said...: "it pleases me to say it."

And that is the reason for most leftist rhetoric. It makes no difference if anything improves or even gets worse, as is usually the case. What you wish for and what makes you feel good is what counts.; 4/22/14, 7:07 AM
Jaq said...: Well if Robert Cook says someone is a "war criminal," what more do we need?

Apparently there is no need to define terms, that would just make for a lot of messy conversation and might require him to leave his ironic when he wants to be, in earnest when he wants to be, and it is up to us to guess correctly, character. Kind of like ARM.; 4/22/14, 8:09 AM
Drago said...: Robert Cook: "Well, if it pleases you to think so..."

I say what I say because it is true and it pleases me to say it.; 4/22/14, 8:22 AM
richard mcenroe said...: So how long before Obama throws his base the ultimate bone and arrests Bush and Cheney as the sruffy old people on the corner in Sherman Oaks are still demanding?; 4/22/14, 9:13 AM
Robert Cook said...: Well, Tim, given that we invaded Iraq without cause and without UN Security Council approval, right there we've committed a war crime. Add to that the civilians we have killed or caused to be killed, the people we have tortured, (and the implementation of torture as official policy), our poisoning of their environment with depleted uranium weapons, the destruction of a whole society and Iraq's national infrastructure...it's not even a question but plain fact Bush, Cheney, et al. are war criminals. Obama joins their rank as a war criminal in his continuation of our killing into further areas of the middle east.

What? You've never heard of dirty cops? We're them!; 4/22/14, 9:59 AM
Robert Cook said...: "So how long before Obama throws his base the ultimate bone and arrests Bush and Cheney as the sruffy old people on the corner in Sherman Oaks are still demanding?"

Never.; 4/22/14, 10:00 AM
furious_a said...: Something the Clintons and Obama never learned -- when one is honest and forthcoming one never has to remember what one said, nor back and fill and blow smoke when one can't.; 4/22/14, 10:17 AM
Drago said...: If Robert Cook wasn't lying he would have nothing to contribute.

His "illegal" war schtick is so dated and hilariously false and has been debunked so thoroughly that be it has to be a put up job.

we will put it right up there with some of the other pieces of the marxist catechism such as "fire cant melt steel" (real 'sciency' there), Bush LIHOP/MIHOP, Reagans "October Surprise" etc.; 4/22/14, 10:30 AM
Original Mike said...: Why did you leave the best one out, Robert? Bush's complicity in 9/11.; 4/22/14, 10:51 AM
Robert Cook said...: "His 'illegal' war schtick...has been debunked...thoroughly...."

It has not been debunked at all, much less "thoroughly."; 4/22/14, 11:18 AM
Mitch H. said...: He is, apparently, one of the few modern exceptions to Lord Acton's rule, that "Great men are almost always bad men." If by "great men", you mean men with power, although the context of that statement (it's the second half of a thought usually truncated to the aphorism about corrupting power) makes it clear Acton himself was using it in that holding-power sense.

Are there any Tafts around?

There was a Governor of Ohio about five-ten years back, who got his tit deep into the wringer over some chickenshit but real corruption issues. My uncle the retired newspaper editor still blows off steam occasionally about the crap Taft got up to in Toledo. The past's enough of another country that I still can't really fathom why Robert Taft held such a respectable position on the right wing of the Republican Party back in the Forties and early Fifties.

It's the Lodge dynasty that's one with the ages - the Kennedys and the general implosion of the old Massachusetts GOP conspired to drum them out of political power, likely forever. Similarly, the Rockefellers' political moment seems to have passed them by.

The denial is strong on this thread. Bush is Hoover.

You think you're being clever, but this is a fairly unobjectionable claim on the libertarian right these days. Partially because Hoover was, like GWB, a decent human being, and partially because both of them were "compassionate conservative" types who were too fond of the levers of governance, and profligate by the standards of the Calvin Coolidges of the party.

By all accounts Reagan was not a particularly good man, and Eisenhower was apparently a card cheat. "Great men are almost always bad men."; 4/22/14, 11:48 AM
CWJ said...: For Robert Cook who wrote -

"CWJ...who suggests that Obama is any less a war criminal, any less a mass murderer than Bush?

(If there is someone you can point to making such suggestions, they're wrong.)"

That would be Heyooyeh at 7:18 yesterday evening. Though he/she did seem to walk it back a bit this morning. As I said, it was his/her game, not mine. So addressing me is a bit misplaced.

Cheers.; 4/22/14, 1:12 PM
CWJ said...: For Heyooyeh who wrote -

"Ok, add them up.

The point is the disaster that was Iraq gets a shrug from everyone here as they fondly remember "nice guy" Bush. He fucked up, his people acted like there was no need to plan effectively for the post-invasion period, and countless humans died as a result -- eviscerate him as you do Obama for Benghazi."

One of these things is not like the other. I think these two examples have only one thing in common. Namely, that the actual outcomes in both cases were not the outcomes expected.

One was anticipating, securing and managing the aftermath of an invasion mounted by tens of thousands of military occupying an entire country of tens of millions inhabitants. The other was anticipating the security needs and if necessary rescuing a single diplomatic mission on the anniversary of 9/11.

So yeah, the situations are completely comparable.

As to "add(ing) them up" the "countless humans (who) died" as you put it, I'll leave it to you to square that particular mathematical circle.

Yours, CJW; 4/22/14, 1:36 PM
Heyooyeh said...: The Bush fiasco was immeasurably worse. That circle wasn't an accident.; 4/22/14, 2:23 PM
Drago said...: Robert Cook: "It has not been debunked at all, much less "thoroughly."

Of course it has.

Repeatedly.

Not surprising you haven't caught up.

But do go on "October Surprise" boy.

It can only get more entertaining.; 4/22/14, 3:48 PM
CWJ said...: OK, I got it. "countless" "immeasurably" There is no metric other than your own outrage.; 4/22/14, 4:20 PM
Jaq said...: It hasn't been debunked, is still full of bunk.; 4/23/14, 7:13 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Of course it has.

Repeatedly."

Hahahaha!

Well, you "repeatedly" assert it has been debunked...but that has no weight.; 4/23/14, 9:20 AM
Jaq said...: You know what else doesn't carry any weight?

Making assertions of an "illegal" war without providing any evidence beyond snark and innuendo.

Was the war against US law?

Is there such a thing as "International Law"? Is that what you base your claim on?

Has there been a trial somewhere with a finding of fact?

Or is it just your opinion which, we have already established, means you know you are right, since you are the final arbiter of such things.

You are right about one thing Robert, there is still plenty of bunk in your claim.; 4/23/14, 9:42 AM
Todd said...: Robert Cook said...
Well, Tim, given that we invaded Iraq without cause and without UN Security Council approval, right there we've committed a war crime. Add to that the civilians we have killed or caused to be killed, the people we have tortured, (and the implementation of torture as official policy), our poisoning of their environment with depleted uranium weapons, the destruction of a whole society and Iraq's national infrastructure...it's not even a question but plain fact Bush, Cheney, et al. are war criminals. Obama joins their rank as a war criminal in his continuation of our killing into further areas of the middle east.

What? You've never heard of dirty cops? We're them!
4/22/14, 9:59 AM

Try reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

"The position of the U.S. and U.K. is that the invasion was authorized by a series of U.N. resolutions dating back to 1990 and that since the U.N. security council has made no Article 39[30] finding of illegality that no illegality exists."

and

"Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under U.N. Resolution 687 (1991), which required cooperation with weapons inspectors. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that under certain conditions, a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty. Thus, the U.S. and U.K. claim that they used their right to suspend the cease-fire in Resolution 687 and to continue hostilities against Iraq under the authority of U.N. Resolution 678 (1990), which originally authorized the use of force after Iraq invaded Kuwait.[31] This is the same argument that was used for Operation Desert Fox in 1998.[32] They also contend that, while Resolution 1441 required the UNSC to assemble and assess reports from the weapons inspectors, it was not necessary for the UNSC to reach an agreement on the course of action. If, at that time, it was determined that Iraq breached Resolution 1441, the resolution did not "constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq".[33]"

Others have other opinions but that is what they are, opinions. so...

"given that we invaded Iraq without cause and without UN Security Council approval" is not factually correct. It is an interpretation of events. Your's verses the government's with their teams of lawyers. That does not mean that you might not be right but it is not a "fact" and the other side appears to have acted in good faith in their actions verses (you know) just signing executive orders and doing whatever they want with executive privilege.

And let us not forget "The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq."; 4/23/14, 10:06 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Was the war against US law?"

Yes. As signatories to the UN Security Council, the provisions therein become the law of the land, as per our Constitution. Among those provisions is a prohibition against waging aggressive war--or even threatening it, (which we do, and did against Iraq)--against other nations. That is, unless in defense against an imminent or active attack by an aggressor nation, or unless approved by the UN Security Council, no member nation may wage war against another member nation.

"Is there such a thing as 'International Law?"

Yes. If there is not, then we must cease referring to it to call into question the legality of actions by other nations--as we do--and we must no longer cast aspersions on the military actions and invasions of others by any other nations around the world--as we do.; 4/23/14, 10:59 AM
Robert Cook said...: "The position of the U.S. and U.K. is that the invasion was authorized by a series of U.N. resolutions dating back to 1990 and that since the U.N. security council has made no Article 39[30] finding of illegality that no illegality exists."

Well, of course we're going to take that position, as otherwise we're admitting to a war crime. This does not mean anything. This is the standard claim made by any defense attorney for his or her accused client. A defense claim is merely that--a claim.

Many refer to resolution 1441, but it is not a vote of approval by the UN Security Council permitting us to invade Iraq. Such a vote of approval is what is necessary and required, nothing less.

Moreover, it was in response to Res. 1441 that Hussein permitted UN Weapons Inspectors into Iraq in the months prior to our illegal invasion to certify he had no WMD. Without having determined whether Hussein had any WMD in his possession, we cannot assert as truthful that Iraq was in material breach of the cease fire. He was endeavoring to show he was in compliance with the cease-fire. We failed to verify our claims against Iraq--rather, we purposely aborted the inspections in order to meet the already long-planned-for date for the "last resort only" (sic) invasion of Iraq.

"And let us not forget "The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq."

Again, no go. This is no more nor less than Nixon's assertion that "If the President does it, it's not illegal." It's the same as Governor Christie's self-absolving investigation into Bridgegate. It's the same as the Nazis justifying their invasion of Poland as being in "self-defense" against Polish aggression. In short, this is merely the evidence of the conspiracy and ratification by the criminals to commit the crime.

Our invasion was illegal and Bush, Cheney, et al, are war criminals.; 4/23/14, 11:17 AM
Todd said...: Our invasion was illegal and Bush, Cheney, et al, are war criminals.

Why? Because you say so? I shared with you just some of the documentation and opinion that goes against your claims. Your response is "no". Well, can't argue with that...; 4/23/14, 12:09 PM