Listen

One of the questions I’ve always asked liberals looking to score cheap political points on President George W. Bush’s “stupid decision” (or in some cases, deemed “criminal decision”) to invade Iraq is this: would you honestly want a president who would evaluate the same evidence that was presented to George Bush from the CIA and every intelligence community in the world – about Saddam’s WMD program and the threats he/it posed to the West – and not act?

Usually when I ask that question, I get silent, blank stares.  Because the answer is obvious.  Any president worth his salt, particularly in a post 9/11 world would act to protect the American people if our best intelligence said that an imminent threat had materialized.  That is the evidence that George Bush received and acted upon.  And while it’s been fashionable for the Monday morning quarterbacks of the left to try to render judgments like “war criminal” on Bush based on information and intelligence we found out later, most of them (only the lunatics) really believe the accusations that they make in that regard.

What’s ironic is that many of them supported Barack Obama in 2008 because he was the self-proclaimed ‘anti-Iraq war’ candidate.  Most observers believe that the major distinguishing factor that crystallized Obama’s support early in the Democrat primary against Hillary was the fact that she voted for the resolution to invade Iraq.  Remember, that is what led to the famous Bill Clinton accusation that Obama was making up a fantasy scenario where he had opposed the war when in fact he hadn’t.  Clinton called Obama “the biggest fairy tale” he’d ever seen.

But the anti-war lefties were in love.  And they got their man in the White House.  One wonders what they’re thinking after the recent revelations that emerged on CBS over the weekend, that should have the impact of a bombshell to these true believers.  The conversation centered around what Obama is desperate to make the centerpiece of his campaign – the raid to kill bin Laden last May:

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, AUTHOR "MANHUNT": Well, it's getting to the-- getting to the question of the President's decision for a minute. Michael Morell, the deputy director of the CIA in-- around December, the-- before the May raid, told the President that the circumstantial case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was better than the circumstantial case that bin Laden was in Abbottabad. That's a pretty amazing comment.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Really!

PETER BERGEN: And President Obama asked Morell and others, why is it that so many people have different percentages about the possibility that bin Laden is there, and Morell says something along the lines that a lot of this is about your experience. The people hunting bin Laden have a higher degree. The people who spent years doing this, have a highest degree of certitude. The people who are involved in the WMD problem in Iraq tend to have a lower degree of certitude. But as Graham said, you know, when your two most senior advisers and your second-most senior military adviser are both sort of advising you to do something pretty different, it is an amazing decision that he made. I also reported on the ground in-- in Abbottabad was able to get inside bin Laden's compound.

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK

First of all, notice that the expert here, Peter Bergen, is praising Barack Obama for his decision making.  This is all part of the narrative right now coming out from Team Obama, coupled with their ridiculous ad that Mitt Romney would not have ordered bin Laden killed (an ad that is read by Bill Clinton of all people – the guy who himself chose to pass on the capture or killing of bin Laden before 9/11).  So this isn’t a hostile source to the president.  But look at what is being said there: the case for bin Laden’s presence in that compound was weaker than the case for Saddam having WMD.

Yet, Obama decided to act.  Well, well, well...what do we have here if it isn’t the undermining of the entire Obama campaign in 2008, as he railed against the “Dumb War” in Iraq.  Unless Obama means to suggest that an Iraq armed with WMD with intent and ability to attack the U.S. with those weapons is LESS of a threat than bin Laden holed up in a two floor compound in Pakistan, his entire case has just imploded around him.  Either Bush was right to act on the intelligence, or Obama himself was irresponsible and a war monger.

Given that Obama is spending his time these days telling us how wise he was to order the bin Laden raid, I think the jury is in.  Somebody – a lot of bodies, actually – owe Mr. Bush an apology.  I’m sure it’s coming any day now, don’t you?