Bush lie. Bush was cic. Bush was not instructed by Congress to invade or create a conflict with anyone. That was at HIS discretion based on information he gave Congress. And it's clear bushie was lying about wmd's.<quoted text>
The better question is, Why did Bush get ( below ) under a Democrat controlled Senate?:
"Congressional Approval For An Act Of War: Bush Versus Obama:
Folks of liberal persuasion aren't going to like hearing the truth but Bush Junior DID get congressional approval for his actions against BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq. I know that liberal PC talking points say otherwise but truth is truth. Even that bastion of liberal media, MSNBC, has stopped running from and distorting the truth:
For liberals who are in denial, the hard fact is, Bush got congress' approval for both of his wars but President Obama did not for this first war of his own doing. It's true that Bush's opinion was that he didn't need congress' approval for actions like his, but Democrats(!)'encouraged' him to do so. So he took the advice of Democratic leadership (Tom Daschle) and got congress' approval. Even the Democratic-controlled senate sided with Bush.
Here's another thing those in liberal land aren't going to like. Congress, including a Democratic-controlled Senate, agreed it was the right thing to do. That means that both wars weren't just Bush's wars. Congress, including both parties within it, owned them too.
Of course the response from the left will be that 'Bush lied' to get congress' approval. Problem with that is, just like Bush, congress believed the intelligence reports from all over the world that Saddam had WMD. Yes, much of that intelligence appears to have been exaggerated by the intelligence-gatherers. Presidents and congresses can't gather intelligence themselves. They're dependent on 'professionals' to do that for them and they have to make decisions on whatever information they're given. Truth is, congress (including Democrats) believed the intelligence reports just like Bush did. It's only a "lie" if you knowing tell something untruthful but both Bush AND congress believed the reports. True enough, both Bush and congress told us something that wasn't true but they didn't know that. Neither willfully lied.
To the extent, however, that you think Bush lied to congress, congress (including the Democratic senate) ALSO lied to the American people for the same reasons. Congress, as The People's representatives gave their approval for those wars based on the same information Bush had. It's just as valid for me to say my representatives in congress lied to me via their approval votes based on the same information Bush had. If Bush doesn't have clean hands, neither does congress, Republicans or Democrats.
For those of you who will still believe that Bush lied, I'd like to ask you the following. If you condemn Bush for lying, what do you say to Obama who is the only president in a long time who didn't get congress' approval for an act of war? We can have no assurance whatsoever that Obama is being truthful about his acts of war in Libya. Which is worse, having a president being open with congress about the intelligence he has and his reasons, therefore, for going to war OR having a president who won't discuss his authority, reasons or end-game for a war with congress in the first place? Which president's actions are more unconstitutional? Which president did not take the opposition party leadership's advice to present his cases (for acts of war) to congress"?
So no matter how you slice and dice your claims to sink Congress with bushie boy, there was only one person in charge.