I have seen quite a few defences of Bush and his invasion of Iraq in this forum. Many of them are based on the some of the following ideas: that the Bush administration, and most people, couldn't possibly have forseen the disaster Iraq has become; that the Bush administration genuinely believed the arguments put forward for the invasion (WMDs, regime change, terror connection etc); and that also, most people couldn't have seen through the WMD arguments because there simply weren't any credible counter-arguments or reason to disbelieve Bush, and so on.
I believe none of these arguments stand up, and although I don't want go over them yet again (I'm lying, I do), I think the following cartoons (although they prove little in themselves) are a good, to-the-point, illustration of how many of the shortcomings* of the Iraq invasion had long been foreseen. All of the cartoons were first run in late 2002, long before the invasion started.
If you haven't already seen them - enjoy.
Notice the massive underestimate of casualties in the following:
* "Shortcoming" seems such a feebly inappropriate word, but I can't think of a better word at this moment in time.
For something to be good satire, it isn't necessary that it makes a justifiable argument. But if by "justifiable argument" you're referring to the implication in the first cartoon that there wasn't a decent casus belli, and the predictions the following cartoons make, well, I think time has more or less proven what the cartoonist said.
