George W. the 'War Monger' still Does not Admit Guilt for Attacking Iraq

Last week, President bush met with Jim Axelrod at the Presidents home in Dallas. As expected, there were questions asked of the president that would be expected.
The following is an exerpt from the Axelrod report taken during the interview.

He is proud of his book "Decision Points." A chronicle of crucial decisions he made over the course of his adult life, Mr. Bush wants to set the record straight. He is not a man full of regret or doubt. Even though no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq, he doesn't second guess the decision to invade, saying it made the world safer and freed a country from the grip of a dictator.

Question: And so the liberation, in your view, justifies everything.

Mr. Bush: In my view, what justifies everything is the removal of a threat. I mean, Saddam Hussein, weapons or no weapons, would've been a threat had he remained in power. But he had the capacity to make weapons. And he certainly would've had the money to make weapons. And he'd have been emboldened, 'cause once again the world would've said, "Disarm." And we would've allowed him to stay in power.


Sometimes you should be judged by the decisions you don't make - in other words the decision to leave him in power. And my judgment would've been a decision that could've created enormous chaos in the world. Now, as one could envision a nuclear arms race between Saddam and Iran, and then they'd have been saying, "Wait a minute, the failure to act created enormous stress."

The following are comments of the editor of this blog in an attempt to state reasoning why President Bush should be held accountable for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with all of the unnecessary deaths associated to the United States invasions.

As stated, George W. sincerely believes that the world is now safer as he freed a country from the grips of a dictator. But regardless of what he thinks, he entered the country with his American troops with false pretenses. Congress voted to go to war because of weapons of mass destruction. He justified his actions at the time because he claimed that Suddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I believe that he had knowledge that he did not have the weapons, but used it as an excuse to get the Congress to sign off onto the invasion. In the end, so far to date, Iraq does not and never had weapons of mass destruction but the mere fact that George W. took his troops to war on these pretenses, and that thousands have died for 'his' cause, and over 100,000 Iraqi citizens died so far to date, makes him a 'mass murderer'. His attack on Iraq even though the world is a better place now because Suddam Hussain is now dead does not make his actions right. If he invaded Iraq to capture Osama bin Laden, then maybe I could agree with him. The citizens of New York City still have yet to try the accused perpetrator of the 911 disaster, as this dictator is still now living in Afghanistan. Did Saddam Hussein's so called weapons of mass destruction topple the twin towers and kill thousands of Americans on U.S. soil? Of course not.

He also states that he should have been judged for the decision he did not make. But now it is only speculation as far as how he would have been judged if he didn't attack Suddam Hussein. George W. claims that Sadaam did have the money and the ability to build, and so does North Korea. Do you think that President Obama would ever attack North Korea unless he was provoked by N Korea first? I highly doubt it, but at least if and when President Obama does, he will have accurate knowledge from his advisors to make a calculated and correct course of action.

President Bush can be called nothing short of a war monger, and to think that he is happy with his service to his country. He doesn't even bat an eye when he reads the reports that another soldier has died in a war that he started.