Originally posted by NaplesX
I just want to recap this thread:
1. Bush is a bumbling idiot that can't even complete sentences correctly.
I don't know whether or not he's an idiot, but he is, like his father, not the most articulate human being the world has ever seen. I must admit, however, that his father's intelligence was never in question.
2. Despite being an idiot he had enough sense to appoint smarter people around him to make the decisions for him. Many think Chenney is actually governing.
You assume that he runs the show. Try this scenario on for size: sometime near the end of Clinton's first term, the RNC decides to begin grooming Bush to run for president. Clinton is most likely going to be unbeatable in '96, and so they wheel out poor Bob Dole to take the hit. The RNC hands Bush their star players: Rove and Cheney. His presidency is largely made up of people from his father's administration, and most of them with a promotion. Condi Rice, I believe, is the only new player in a high profile position (but hey, she had an oil tanker named after her).
3. These "Smarter" people led Bush down the path to war based on a neo-conservative ideology.
I don't know that they led him. I'd argue that he went willingly. But yes. This is a neo-con administration: all foreign policy, all the time. No real domestic policy beyond the mantra of tax cuts.
4. Opponents of the war predict Iraq's oil wells to be set ablaze, massive chemical weapons death, and total middle east upheaval.
The last one, yes, which I should point out still waits to be seen. The others? I don't know. I don't remember anyone claiming that there would be massive deaths from chemical weapons. Besides, even the military (as Rummy pointed out today to Wolf Blitzer) was expecting SH to use chemical weapons.
5. Bush somehow convinced the American Public, the US congress, and the world community to go along with the march to war despite his fumbling and bumbling, not to mention total lack of evidence.
"Somehow." There's a Tom Tomorrow cartoon that tracks the headlines during the run-up to war. I can't find it at the moment, but I'll post a link when I do. Nevertheless. You could make the argument that he only barely convinced the public, did NOT convince the rest of the world, and lied to congress to get their support.
6. US wages war and wins.
Was that ever in question? Seriously. We might have haggled over what kind of conflict it was going to be (urban vs desert) or how long it might take, but did anyone seriously think that we would LOSE?
7. It is now commonly accepted that the Iraq war was planned in Texas by bush and company long before he got into office.
Invading Iraq, removing SH, and installing a (pro-American) democracy is one of the central obsessions of neo-conservatives, PNAC and the AEI.
8. Many now think that Iraq never really had WMD at and was just bluffing to maintain control. Neo-cons used war to gain control of oil.
The oil is a perk. The idea is that a democratic Iraq will have a domino effect on the rest of the middle east.
9. All reasons given to go to war are overlooked in favor of WMD or lack thereof to prove deception of the world.
Passive voice there suggests that you're attacking someone but don't want to say who. The argument, again, is that we were fed a line of bull about SH's weapons and their capacities. There was a pretty systematic logic to it, and I remember hearing pundits comment on how the admin was trying out new lines of argument when the polls didn't tell them what they wanted. The up-shot (and this is where Rove and Cheney are brilliant political strategists) is that this rolling deployment of arguments can be claimed to have been the plan all along.
10. Bush knew about every piece of intel and knew what SH's true intentions were, he knew for a fact that there were no WMD's, planned an elaborate scheme to mislead the world, thus Bush and only Bush is solely responsible for lying.
No. This is not the argument at all. The argument is that the admin, because it has an ideological obsession with Iraq, was willing to exaggerate the intel it did have if it meant they could justify invading.
Have I left anything out?
Yes. Lots. Straw men aren't your cup of tea, I see.