Redstate asks a stupid question — well, two of them.

When the history of the decision to go to war in Iraq is written, there’s one fact that I have to believe will get more attention than it does today: the fact that Saddam Hussein hired terrorists to murder George H.W. Bush….

Put yourself in Bush’s shoes: if you were asked to decide whether Saddam Hussein would ever get involved with terrorism, wouldn’t it affect the way you looked at the evidence that Saddam had already attempted a terrorist attack designed to kill a member of your family? And isn’t that, in fact, an entirely logical and natural way to approach such a question?

No and no. 

If I were in Bush’s shoes (i.e., President), I would understand that difference between "assassination" and "terrorism".  The difference between the two is vast: the former is conducted on political leaders; the latter on civilians.

And while I certainly cannot condone assassination, I doubt that there has ever been a sitting President in modern times who has enjoyed freedom from such a threat.  The thing is, they don’t elect to go to war over that.