Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
In President Bush's exclusive ABC interview last night, he appeared to dramatically change the Administration's rationale for the entire Iraq war. Specifically, when ABC News correspondent Diane Sawyer asked Bush why no WMD have been found despite repeated claims that Iraq had them, Bush said, "Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him." When Sawyer said the Administration "stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons," Bush said, "what's the difference?"
MORE WMD QUESTIONS: Adding fuel to Bush's WMD revelations is a story in Florida Today that reports, "U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said the Bush administration last year told him and 75 other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities." The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense (who had no comment), despite the fact that the President himself had made a similar claim in a speech on 10/7/02. Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones. But as he also correctly pointed out, "They have not found anything that resembles an UAV that has that capability."
Did you notice how obviously agitated he became at her line of questioning? I was getting excited that someone was finally going to pin him on the hard questions just as she backed off and tried to get him to admit that there was some personal gratification for getting daddy's boogieman.
I'm still waiting for someone to REALLY put him on the hot plate like England's Parliament did Tony Blair. Wishful thinking I guess.