David Corn: Bush Rewrites History To Criticize His Anti-war Critics

[norml]

Bush Rewrites History To Criticize His Anti-war Critics
David Corn
1 hour, 48 minutes ago



The Nation -- In a Veterans Day speech on Friday, delivered to troops and others at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, George W. Bush veered from the usual commemoration of sacrifice to strike at critics who have questioned whether he steered the country into war by using false information. This has become a tough and troubling issue for his presidency. A poll taken before his speech found that 57 percent of the respondents now believe that Bush "deliberately misled" the nation into war. That is astounding and, I assume, without precedent in history. Has there been another wartime period during which a majority of Americans believed the president had purposefully bamboozled them about the reasons for that war? Addressing this charge is tough for Bush because it calls more attention to it, and the on-ground-realities in Iraq only cause more popular unease with the war. But Bush and his aides calculated that it was better to punch back than ignore the criticism, and that's a sign that they're worried that Bush is coming to be defined as a president who conned the nation into an ugly war. So Bush tried. Let's break down his effort:

Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war.

Conservative who claim raising questions about the war does a disservice to the troops and is anti-American might want to keep these words in mind.

When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support.

Actually, Congress did not approve Bush's decision to remove Saddam. In October 2002, the House and Senate approved a resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq if he deemed that appropriate. At the time, Bush and his aides were claiming it was their goal to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction and his WMD programs (which, we know now, did not exist). When the resolution passed---and in the weeks after---the White House insisted that Bush was not bent on "regime change" and that he was willing to work within the UN to force Saddam to accept UN inspectors (which Saddam did) in pursuit of the goal of disarming Iraq. Is Bush now saying that he had already resolved to invade Iraq at this point and all his talk about achieving disarmament through the UN process was bunk? Is he rewriting history--or telling us the real truth? In any event, when Bush did order the invasion of Iraq months later in March 2003, he did not ask Congress to vote on his decision to remove Saddam.


snip


http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Bush+Rewrites+History+To+Criticize+His+Anti-war+Critics%22&btnG=Search+News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20051114/cm_thenation/336405;_ylt=A86.I1kZw3hDKeYAkwL9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

[Neil Lisst]

1. Bush is a liar.

At no time did the Dems agree that Bush should go to war to remove Saddam. They granted him authority to act, and that authority to act was sold as necessary to empower him to act strongly with the UN.

He got it under false pretenses, and he got it by lying about the intel.

[liberal N proud]

3. To bu$h the authority to use force was approval for war

it is like telling a kid he can't have a cookie when they are sitting in front of him.

[Up2Late]

2. David Corn is alway way ahead of the rest of the media

"The Nation" is a good read.

<http://www.thenation.com/>