Can Bush be trusted when it is needed?

Kevin Drum posts on the possible future plans of the Bush administration in a fourth term, including whether it might gin up another case for attacking another nation (link). The interesting question, for me, is really not so much whether they will or will not do it, but whether we can trust them not to do it.

Let's put it another way: this is a dangerous world. Few will dispute that. We are in a war. Few will dispute that. That war might require us to attack another nation some time in the next four years. Again, few will dispute that.

However, if we need to attack some nation in the future and our justification for that attack is based purely on intelligence that says they are a threat to us, can we ever trust the case for the attack if it is made George W. Bush?

Putting aside the question of whether John Kerry has the will to attack in order to defend this nation, couldn't the case be made that he would have a better chance of building the trust necessary to lead us in such an attack?

If Syria, Iran or North Korea really were an imminent threat to us, which man would you trust to make the case for war against those nations?

That's the question we should be asking.