…is that it rights the Bush Record, at least according to some people on Facebook who just posted this:
I’m posting this simply because I am in awe of it. Just off the top of my head:
==> I don’t remember President Bush, Don Rumsfeld, or Colin Powell saying, “There are WMDs in the Middle East.” I think they were a lot more specific about them being in Iraq, since that was the reason given for invading that particular country.
==> Is the only explanation for Syria having chemical weapons in 2013, that Saddam had them back in 2003 and moved them in advance of the US invasion?
==> Let’s assume that the people on Facebook who liked the above poster are right; they were saying things like, “and at the time bush said saddam moved them to syria. hmmm” Fine. Suppose Bush had said the following back in early 2003:
“My fellow Americans, we and the rest of the free world face a grave threat from the regime of Saddam Hussein. That’s why I propose sending in American forces, thousands of whom will die over the next ten years, so that the chemical weapons in Saddam’s possession will end up in the hands of Assad, who will use them in horrifying attacks on his people, so that (a decade from now) my successor will come back to you, explaining the urgency of using American forces to take over another country. God bless America.”
Are you telling me he would’ve gotten the green light? Yet the above is actually the defense of Bush that these people are giving, and giving it with smugness to boot. Like they can’t believe they’re surrounded by such idiots, that they have to point this stuff out about what a great decision it was to invade Iraq a decade ago because of those chemical weapons.