After Iraq invasion, Bush NEVER passed the orders to commit brutalities. It was purely in the army's hand to behave itself. It was a personal DECISION OF SOLDIERS AND OFFICERS to sadistically torture Iraqis or to shoot unarmed civilians due to fear (atleast initially in 2003-04). OTHER ARMIES WOULDN%u2019T have done that. Iraqis are so good natured that let alone Indian, even Pakistani, Russian or Chinese troops would have easily pacified them. US troops botched such an easy job and are now making Bush a scapegoat.
Bush%u2019s I.Q. should NOT be questioned. His ONLY problem is faulty speech. His decision making is perfect. For instance he requested Indian troops because HANDLING KASHMIR IS MILLION TIMES TOUGHER THAN HANDLING IRAQ. Kashmir will remain dangerous forever but Iraq would have cooled within a week had they interacted with Indian troops. That way, so many Iraqi lives could have been saved. Judge the average Iraqi%u2019s sincerity by the services of unsung Iraqi police during the period 2003-05. On the other hand there is something surreal about passionate Kashmir.
Some may say, "Why invade/occupy in the first place?" How do they know Intelligence is not responsible for this? How do they know what had happened and what was in his mind? To be fair the innocent man should be given a genuine opportunity to defend his actions.
It is not a style of bad guys to take unpopular step in face of overwhelming
