Who is rewriting history now?

The Washington Post critiques the Bush claim that people are trying to rewrite the history of how the Iraq war started. They point out some of the lies Bush is now lying about again. Bush is either desperate, stupid, delusional or just a liar. No other choices at this point. The Post does a fairly good job but still is careful not to step on Georges toes too hard. Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, November 12, 2005; Page A01 President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence. Neither assertion is wholly accurate. Bush, in his speech Friday, said that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." But in trying to set the record straight, he asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support." In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence." The fact is 126, 60%, of House Democrats and 21 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution. Together you had 147 Democrats against, 105 voted for the resolution. But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country. The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power. The resolution voiced support for diplomatic efforts to enforce "all relevant Security Council resolutions," and for using the armed forces to enforce the resolutions and defend "against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." Read more: Washington Post