Ahh, the Slimes. Figuring out another way to blame George Bush.
Bush lied. People died.
Bush didn’t lie. People still died.
It is true that Bush did not defend himself, even though as president and commander in chief, he had to know WMDs were found.
If the military unilaterally refused to reveal this to him, first one has to wonder how in the world they managed that, but second, that makes it, in effect, a coup d’état by the military against civilian control. And it would have been to the harm of the US. That was an era of US general of which I had personal knowledge (not claiming personal relationship...please don’t misunderstand.) That simply would not have been the case with those people. I would find it hard to believe about them.
Bush lied. People died.
Bush didn’t lie. People still died."
And that's really the point here: the underlying message to take home is "yes! of course there were WMD stockpiles, exactly as we were told, exactly as Congress believed, and exactly as Bush said.
The NYT has chosen - of course - to take the lowest possible road: suggesting a Bush cover-up, lying about WMD age, WMD types, on-going programs, whatever -- while at the same time finally coming clean (not really) about what they must have known for years themselves.
So look at us here: blaming Bush about not sticking up for himself (which has been part of his personality from Day 1 - it's not about him, and never has been).
Instead, let's put the blame where it belongs: on the media for not reporting the stories when they knew it, and not supporting a country and President during a war that needed to be won. And they're still doing that today.
It's not about Bush - it's about the Times' agenda.