Let's see now. We invaded Iraq because they had something to do with September 11. Only they didn't have anything to do with September 11 and the Bush administration knew it.
Okay, so we invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction. Only they didn't have weapons of mass destruction and any "evidence" that they maybe, possibly had them was cooked by the administration.
Then we invaded Iraq to bring them democracy, only instead we gave them a civil war.
So finally we invaded Iraq because we had to stop the terrorists there (even though they had nothing to do with any terrorist attacks on us) so we wouldn't have to fight them here at home.
Only now we know that instead of stopping the terrorists in Iraq, we created bunches of new terrorists. And that's not the point of view of a bunch of disgruntled liberals -- that's the conclusion of a National Intelligence Estimate produced in April by US intelligence agencies.
The New York Times broke this story and Diane reported on it yesterday.
Today's catch-up story in The Washington Post tells us that:
Both Bush and bin Laden now consistently describe the Iraq war as the "central front" of the global war, and both are depending on victory there to set the direction of future struggles far afield.In other words Bush, who was more interested in invading Iraq than in catching bin Laden, played right into the man's hands.
I've only got one question: At this point, how can anyone see Bush and his bozos as the people who will do the best job of keeping us safe?