20 years on, should George W. Bush be on trial for Iraq?

total fraud

He should have been tried way back then.

Starting it

Bush is long past.

That bullshit still pisses me off.

Iraq was more Cheney's idea, he was a signatory to the PNAC fantasy of sending the entire Middle East up in flames so we (figuratievly speaking, you and I would pay through the nose for it) could grab all the oil. Anyone who read their fantasy before it was scrubbed knew what a farce it was from the beginning.

So although Dubya got himself talked into it and belongs in the dock, Cheney and his pet liar belong there with him.

But he wasn't. Why? Because President Obama wanted to "look forwards, not backward," and because Nancy Pelosi refused to start an investigation of the prior administration's war crimes.

Look, primary responsibility for what happened in Iraq rests with Bush. But there were a number of powerful Democrats who were willing to look the other way at the time. We forget that at our peril.

Nancy Pelosi, who had made noises throughout 2007 and 2007 about holding Bush and his team accountable, abruptly changed here tune after the 2008 elections, and shut down any discussion of doing so among Congressional Democrats, because she didn't want to "re-litigate the past." . And in 2009, a newly-elected President Obama, when asked about the same subject, said, naively and, I daresay, rather selfishly, that he wanted to "look forward, not backwards."

Responsibility for what happened in Iraq rests squarely with Bush and his administration. But the failure to hold him accountable is a failure owned by botgh parties, sad to say.

when asked "knowing what you know now about Iraq do you still think it was it a good idea to go in?"

Thanks for the thread peppertree