George W. Bush is ...

Lou --

To suggest that in order to be against the invasion -- in hindsight or anywhere else -- one must prefer to have Saddam Hussein in power is silly. Of course, Saddam being out of power is a good thing. I'm for that. I'm also for getting to my next interview on time ... but I am not going to run four red lights to make sure it happens, risking my own life and those of many others for what is, indeed, a noble goal. For any civilized society, the question must always be, does the end justify the means? I appreciate many of your arguments, but that's a classic false dichotomy.

 

It's probably time for my knee to jerk and for me to point out that Ending Saddam's Reign Of Terror Over One-Eighth Of Iraq wasn't the reason this war was sold, wasn't the basis for the lies that were fed to us and to the world, and wasn't a casus belli that one-third of Americans would have accepted, which is why the kabuki about the lagoons of anthrax and botulism was foisted on us. Don't take my word for it. Ask Wolfowitz, who as much as said so.
With an incomplete war in Afghanistan against the people who gave succor to the people who actually attacked us, I frankly could give a damn about Iraq. Felt that way in 2002. Feel that way now. The PNAC people should all be on a park bench somewhere, howling at the moon. Instead, they're still Respected Opinion Leaders, hankering now for another war.


and the answer to the thread title is "...a complete and utter incompetent."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14051364/