Of course the intelligence concerning the WMD was false, and there is reason to believe that Bush knew of its falsity (remember the piece about Saddam acquiring uranium from Africa? Yeah, that was false). To put it simply: Mr. Kim of North Korea openly admitted that he has WMDs – and what did Bush do? Nothing. In fact, Bush declared that North Korea is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism or an enemy of the United States.
Iraq, at most, had chemicals and biological weapons. North Korea, on the other hand, has nuclear – as well as the means to deliver it – through its Taepodong missiles. (Iraq did not). Yet, it was the Bush administration who okayed a visit to Pyongyang by the New York Philharmonic.
Which one was a greater threat to the U.S.? Why did Bush decide to resolve the North Korea situation via diplomacy through six-party talk, but chose to “go it alone” with Iraq?
I think you will agree: the WMD issue was never a real issue. It was a mere smokescreen to cover the true reason for the war.
A few more things:
(1): Bush may not have personally gained from the war. That does not mean the war was the right choice.
(2): A 50% rate of error means that it is wrong half of the time. There is no point in relying on this kind of % when you can do the same by flipping a coin. Again, North Korea 100% has WMDs. Bush did nothing.
(3): The Bush administration was the one advocating for the war based on the post-9.11 sentiment. The American people did not ask for a war – it was the government who falsely led the people with false intelligence.
Funny you mentioned “brainwash by the media.” That would seem to be more appropriately addressed to someone who is still in the dark of the truth behind the Iraq war.
