...more recent posts
looks like a building outside my window on allen st. is on fire. i can hear the fire engines coming now.
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?