http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr14.html

From the online Q&A:

Great. That's just great. Am I to understand that the "pitch" the President was offered on Iraq was responsible for the war? That if the evidence had been brought forward in a more reserved approach, the President's gut- feeling would have been different? That's just too rich. "Say, President, do you think we should go to war on this? Yes, my instinct tells me that is the right thing to do".

There's some things I don't get about this. It is a fact that before the war there were many opinions that was not exactly unchecked praises about the intelligence available. Even within the channels that should be immediately available to the president. And some of the most damning evidence was found to be forgeries and the rest highly speculative, being eyewitness accounts and insider tips. This we knew before the war. And now we also know that in spite of how certain some people seemed, they didn't have the "other" evidence that was absolutely certain after all. It seems the President's "instinct" was wrong.

But what happens? The Bush/Cheney campaign has put this book up on the recommended reading list. I wonder, do they think that the honest naivité Bush radiates will make it appear that they acted responsibly? That people would somehow forget the fact that the idea of going to war with Iraq in the first place came from the administration? That people will understand that the President would have to lie in order to do some neccessary dirty work, or that the WMD's didn't matter after all? Or have they simply decided to ride out the wave of bullshit, resolve and decisiveness all the way to election day? That the absence of a critical approach on the actual decision for a war would be forgotten? I mean, if it were me, I would shut the hell up about it, try to put on a happy face and not bring any attention to the fact that war plans were being not only planned but put into life and declared simply based on huches and instincts.

But I'm obviously missing an aspect here. Any ideas about that? :confused:

I think it was something he ate. I get a "gut feeling" too, when i eat brussel sprouts that passed the advized consumption date. But it usually goes away after i pass a little gas...
Imagine that!
Bush sent his troops to war when he should have gone to the toillete instead, and fart his presidential ass in the crapper. Well, now that i think about it, it makes perfect sense. Why else do you think people always say "War stinks"?

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

The President seldom listens to mere mortal people, apparently. He claims that God Himself talks directly to him. How can he possibly be wrong when God talks to him and tells him exactly what to do?

And the president's not the only one. I remember reading in a newspaper at the time of the initial attack the interview of an american officer. He said something like this:

"How could we lose when God is on our side?"

__________________