Yeah, I'm dumping more of my questionable political speculation over here.
Could a democrat attack Bush on Iraqi WMD in this way? Instead of going on about how there aren't any, back up and accept a lot of what the administration said in the run up to war, and then pin them to the wall on the outcome. In other words, something like this:
"But Mr. President, respectfully, we all know there were dangerous weapons in Iraq. You yourself said that there were. Your staff said that there were. Donald Rumsfeld said he knew where they were. Colin Powel gave specific details on stocks of poison gasses. Of course these things were true. My question to you now, Mr. President, is if we knew the weapons were there WHY DID WE FAIL TO SECURE THOSE WEAPONS? Since we know that they did exist, and we now know that we cannot account for them, aren't we to conclude that invading Iraq caused the weapons to fall into unaccounted hands? WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS?"
This seems like a much more powerful attack than merely saying that there never were any weapons. They would have no avenue (that I can see) to reply. They could spin their way out of it in the press, but in a one on one debate, what could Bush say? He can't say they never existed. And he can't say they have been located. He'd be stuck. And the attack could seem respectful which I think is very important if we want to suck votes over to the other side.
What am I missing?
he would do what he always does, not answer the question directly. im guessing he might praise the efforts of the miliitary somewhere in there. something about "best available intelligence." i doubt theres alot of room for give and take. then the spin can take over. but it is a reason why clark is an attractive candidate.
and we'll have to see where this Plame thing goes. did ashcroft recuse because hes too close or so they could say it was independent when they find nothing?
today i was thinking that if dean wins and clark wont go for the two slot that maybe bob graham of florida wouldnt be such a bad choice. im not sure how they reconcile their positions on the war. i suppose they could say they are of one mind about the future and that bush did a crappy job of it. plus graham is another mr. foreign policy strong security guy to butress deans weak foreign policy credentials. if that could make a difference in florida plus the repentant naderites. and there is talk of katherine harris running for grahams senate seat which the conventional wisdom says will enflame florida democrats. im not sure who the dems have to run against her. graham is retiring.
maybe you need an election '04 page. or a politics page.
Bush isn't invulnerable from the right. I was listening to some talk radio today, and people were blasting him on the guest worker proposal. But the "Bush lost the WMDs" attack would have to come from someone with strong-on-defense credentials, say former Senator Sam Nunn.
Another approach is to paint the hawks as tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists for a) believing Chalabi's lies, and b) continuing to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
But the apologists still in partial denial.
it's been a while...glad to see some political speculation still swirlin'...
the answer to this one is that you can't blame the president for not finding the weapons without blaming the army for not finding the weapons. it wouldn't work.
i would LOVE a politics page... ; ) how do we make one?
Rummy fired anyone who didn't share his "go lean" mantra. Despite being warned, Rumsfeld didn't put a force in place to maintain civil order, maintain control of known weapons dumps, etc., etc.
|
Could a democrat attack Bush on Iraqi WMD in this way? Instead of going on about how there aren't any, back up and accept a lot of what the administration said in the run up to war, and then pin them to the wall on the outcome. In other words, something like this:
"But Mr. President, respectfully, we all know there were dangerous weapons in Iraq. You yourself said that there were. Your staff said that there were. Donald Rumsfeld said he knew where they were. Colin Powel gave specific details on stocks of poison gasses. Of course these things were true. My question to you now, Mr. President, is if we knew the weapons were there WHY DID WE FAIL TO SECURE THOSE WEAPONS? Since we know that they did exist, and we now know that we cannot account for them, aren't we to conclude that invading Iraq caused the weapons to fall into unaccounted hands? WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS?"
This seems like a much more powerful attack than merely saying that there never were any weapons. They would have no avenue (that I can see) to reply. They could spin their way out of it in the press, but in a one on one debate, what could Bush say? He can't say they never existed. And he can't say they have been located. He'd be stuck. And the attack could seem respectful which I think is very important if we want to suck votes over to the other side.
What am I missing?
- jim 1-09-2004 6:03 pm
he would do what he always does, not answer the question directly. im guessing he might praise the efforts of the miliitary somewhere in there. something about "best available intelligence." i doubt theres alot of room for give and take. then the spin can take over. but it is a reason why clark is an attractive candidate.
and we'll have to see where this Plame thing goes. did ashcroft recuse because hes too close or so they could say it was independent when they find nothing?
today i was thinking that if dean wins and clark wont go for the two slot that maybe bob graham of florida wouldnt be such a bad choice. im not sure how they reconcile their positions on the war. i suppose they could say they are of one mind about the future and that bush did a crappy job of it. plus graham is another mr. foreign policy strong security guy to butress deans weak foreign policy credentials. if that could make a difference in florida plus the repentant naderites. and there is talk of katherine harris running for grahams senate seat which the conventional wisdom says will enflame florida democrats. im not sure who the dems have to run against her. graham is retiring.
maybe you need an election '04 page. or a politics page.
- dave 1-09-2004 6:38 pm [add a comment]
the plame thing was relevant insofar as i was imagining other lines of attack against bush. would he be more vulnerable as a result of that and other unforesable events related to iraq and the "war" on terror.
- dave 1-09-2004 7:20 pm [add a comment]
Bush isn't invulnerable from the right. I was listening to some talk radio today, and people were blasting him on the guest worker proposal. But the "Bush lost the WMDs" attack would have to come from someone with strong-on-defense credentials, say former Senator Sam Nunn.
- mark 1-10-2004 8:41 am [add a comment]
Another approach is to paint the hawks as tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists for a) believing Chalabi's lies, and b) continuing to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
But the apologists still in partial denial.
- mark 1-11-2004 6:56 am [add a comment]
it's been a while...glad to see some political speculation still swirlin'...
the answer to this one is that you can't blame the president for not finding the weapons without blaming the army for not finding the weapons. it wouldn't work.
i would LOVE a politics page... ; ) how do we make one?
- big jimmy (guest) 1-23-2004 6:09 am [add a comment]
Rummy fired anyone who didn't share his "go lean" mantra. Despite being warned, Rumsfeld didn't put a force in place to maintain civil order, maintain control of known weapons dumps, etc., etc.
- mark 1-23-2004 8:34 am [add a comment]