Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, December 3, 2008 06:23 PM

  I felt there was a more stunning admission.

  When Bush was asked directly if he would have invaded if it appeared there were no WMDs, he first didn't understand the question, then said that he didn't know if he would or not, but didn't think he could revisit that decision in retrospect. Those are a bit bigger than the words he used, but that was his intent in responding.

  There were only two "reasons" given by Bush's administration for the illegal invasion and occupation: WMDs and a connection to 9/11. Both were transparently fabricated. Both had been thoroughly dismissed as fraudulent by experts such as, in the case of WMDs, ex-Major Scott Ritter, the U.N. arms inspector. Much of the claims, such as Saddam's supposed WMD delivery capacity were laughable for anyone with a smidgen of technical expertise. In Katie Couric's first interview with 60 Minutes, she allowed Condi Rice to continue to perpetuate the myth that the administration actually believed in the alleged WMDs.

  So Bush said that if, one of those two lynchpins were missing, he still couldn't say whether or not he would have invaded.

  Walsh's otherwise well written piece also buries the truth about the worst of the outcomes of the war. It would appear, from estimates such as the Johns Hopkins incidence and prevelance study, that around a million Iraqis have died violent deaths as a result of Bush's idiocy. Five million survivors have become internal or external refugees. Virtually the entire professional and middle classes have been wiped out, either dead or in exile. This is a country that Bush forced back toward if not actually into, the "stone age," even if Viet Nam-style carpet bombing was not a feature of his murderous behavior.

  —Frank Smith, Bluff City, KS Read Frank Smith, Bluff City, KS's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel