Media Lies...

...why is the headline: Schroeder: Bush 'Not Telling Truth' in Memoir

...why isn't it: Bush: Schroeder Lied

I am biased, I like W, but does anybody believe Gerhard over W? If you read the article, it doesn't stop there. I demand more of my AOL reporters! (Yes, that was a joke).

The narrative continues:

"...More than a year later, Schroeder came out against the Iraq war, calling it an "adventure" based on incomplete data and false premises. It later became clear that he was right -- Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and U.S. intelligence data was faulty..."

...you can't change history with hindsight. You can be against the decision to go to war with Iraq, but you can't change the facts. You can't deny Iraq violated the conditions set at the cease fire at the end of the Gulf War. You can't deny Sadam wanted the world to think he had nukes. You can't deny he tried to obtain them.

...you can think it was right to invade Iraq, but you can't deny Sadam brutalized his own people. You can't deny he made personal millions from France, Germany and Russia in the UN Oil for Food deal. You can't deny that he was a state sponsoring terrorism.

...and now, you can't deny that the military of Iraq, touted as the most powerful, largest, and experienced in the Middle East...is no longer a threat.

In all the mid-east war games played out in my head, EVERY scenario is better with Iraq neutered.

You can disagree on if it was worth the life of the several thousand American soldiers, and that the threat to them at the time was even higher. You can disagree on the strategy or the execution of the occupation.

But you can't speak now, as if we bumbled into war, as if our invasion was based on a single premise rather than the totality of the circumstances at the time. You CAN disagree, you can scream it, but you can't say Bush was wrong, and you can't go back in time.