Did I Miss Something Here?

I stole this post idea from CNN.

It seems that President Bush is out to do some history re-writing of his own. The article talks about how the President has called Democrats and whoever else is making noise about the war in Iraq "irresponsible".

"Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people," Bush said in his prepared remarks.

"Only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world -- and that person was Saddam Hussein," Bush added.

It seems that the President is trying to make it seem like what happened did not happen. You know, do some of that "revisionist history" stuff that according to fat drug addicted pill popping right wing radio blowhards is only done by the left.

I really like the first statement, that it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that the American people were misled. What does Bush call it when only 1/2 of the story is presented, and people draw their conclusions without knowing all the facts? What does he call it when people are fed only information that someone WANTS them to hear, while discrediting all the rest?

Lets flash back a few years. The whole world, even France, is still behind the USA in the wake of the September 11 attack. Afganistan is under occupation, with the support of the planet (sans the Taliban). Here is what I remember happening.

1. President Bush called for war in Iraq, based on the "fact" that there were WMDs there. There were bio weapons factories, stockpiles of chemical weapons, an advanced nuclear program, tons of yellow cake uranium, and all the other stuff the United States has piles of. Much "evidence" was produced to "prove" the claim

2. U.N. memeber nations such as France, Germany, Canada, and others had other evidence that did not jive with what Bush was saying. The UN called for more time to sort the mess out, and see whose evidence was closer to fact.

3. The USA refused, set a date for invasion, Bush accused everyone who was not "with us" to be "against us", and republicans changed "french fries" to "freedom fries" in the US Capitol Building lunch menu.

4. The USA lost the support of the rest of the world, and went along with the invasion plans according to schedule.

5. None of the "slam dunk" evidence was found, so the story was changed to "we are spreading democracy to oppressed people".

6. Anyone who dares point any of this stuff out today is accused of sending mixed signals to "the enemy", and of "re-writing history".

Bush also points out that Democrats voted for the war. Well yea, they were given evidence hand picked by Bush to make his case. Evidence from UN member nations was to be ignored, for it was wrong.

In otherwords, congress WAS misled. Not just Democrats, but Republicans too. And the people. And America's volunteer fighting force. All were misled by the Pied Piper of DC.

And now for a little photo collage.

"Yellow cake" uranium. Have you seen any? None was found in Iraq. Bush said it was there.

Mission Accomplished indeed.

Lies to the UN - or "making a case for war". Powell was highly respected in the UN before this event. None of the slides he had turned out to be true. We should have asked France, they could have told us.

Aluminum tubes, which were going to be used to enrich uranium. Except that the tubes were of the wrong design to make effective enrichers, and there was no yellow cake uranium discovered. Also, no evidence of any other part that would be required to build a machine that could enrich uranium has been found.

So who is re-writing history here?