In a weird way, Dubya has run his administration based on the available evidence. He had no trouble believing anything he wanted as long as there was a complete lack of evidence that it might be true.
Bush made a second stunning admission in his interview with Gibson. “The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq,” he said. “A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington, D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that’s not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.”
What a cowardly, buck-passing answer. It was his administration that was responsible for the faulty intelligence; his administration that notoriously “stove-piped” the available evidence to make the case for war, ignoring all facts that contradicted the neocons’ theories, crushing any dissent in the Pentagon and intelligence establishment. His administration then sold that corrupt evidence to Congress and browbeat members into authorizing the use of military force on the eve of the 2002 midterm election, by depicting them as traitors and sissies if they raised questions. Now Bush is trying to say he was misled by the “failure” of his own intelligence leaders and Cabinet advisors? What a loser.
You don’t get points for sincerity of belief if you’ve got no good reason for that belief based on the evidence. All along there were plenty of observers and commentators to point out what was wrong with Bush’s rationale for war. All those people turned out to be right. Bush was shown to be wrong. Incredibly, he’s still claiming in essence that there was no way he could have known.
“What a loser” seems like an unfortunate schoolyard insult, but it does have the virtue of being entirely accurate.