TIL that in 2004 a Texas man was put to death for killing his family in an arson attack. The jailhouse snitch has admitted he lied, and top scientists/investigators have not been able to find any reason to think the house fire was anything other than a freak accident.

You want me to address your points since you have made them twice. I will capitulate.

He had to trust the information that he had

Isn't it a leader's job to figure out the truth? Shouldn't a leader verify information? Isn't verifying that information paramount when, solely based upon that information that you are about to start a war in which Americans will surely be killed? After realizing he has been lied to, shouldn't a leader punish those who lied to him? Why did nobody stand trial or get fired over the false information? Either W. was inept (as a result of his stupidity) or he is the one maliciously lying to us.

the American people were screaming for blood

I wasn't calling for blood. I wanted Bin Laden to be captured and stand trial. Many Americans were like me. I wanted justice. Some groups in America were making an emotional call for blood, but that does not mean the leader neaded to get the blood lust and attack the wrong country. The American military is unbeatable. If every other country on the planet joined forces we might lose. In such a ridiculously lopsided position of power it is the responsibility of the U.S. to play the just, benevolent, role. Retaliation for blood is a childish and uncontrolled emotional resonse unbefitting of a leader. A leader who does things based on uncontrolled emotional responses has a sub par intellect for the job.

in the same impossible situation, I doubt most of us could've done any better.

What impossible situation? After 9-11 no more attacks came. We got slapped in the face, and then we got things under controll. W. could have taken the money he spent on the war and started giving it away to people in Afghanistand and Pakistan (where we always knew Bin Laden was located). These people would be thankful to the good old U.S. for an increase in their standard of living (we could have doubled both countries GDP with the ammount we spent on the wars) and they would have turned Bin Laden in instead of harboring him. I just came up with that solution (I'm sure it's not original) to what you are calling an "impossible situation." It was an easy problem. America has always had all the power. Most CEOs of fortune 500 companies, and other leaders at that level could have done better. McCain for sure could have done a lot better.

His approval skyrocketed when they invaded So what. Why was this relevant to making a decision which would inevitably lead to more Americans being killed. If he chose to go to war because he thought it would guarantee his reellection that was a stupid selfish decision made by a sub par intellect. He was 3 and a half years away from the next ellection. He didn't need the popluarity rating yet. He had plenty of time to do it right and capture Bin Laden without killing so many American Soldiers and destroying an innocent country (Iraq was innocent of anything to do with 9-11 everybody always knew this).

Geroge W. Bush was a stupid and inept president. You should not defend him.

/r/todayilearned Thread Parent Link - en.wikipedia.org