Candidate best able to press/benefit from the brewing wmd scandal?

[Skip Intro]

Poll question: Candidate best able to press/benefit from the brewing wmd scandal?

Its looking like the Iraq invasion/wmd scandal is going to be an issue in the general election, with growing calls in Congress, even from repubs, for an investigation. Odds are the intel community isn't going to just roll over for the fuhrer, and there are already stories from the run up to the invasion quoting intel sources claiming pressure from the bush regime. Its going to be an issue, possibly the issue. And rightly so, bush and the gang should pay politically for their lies and murders.

Looking at the current field of Democratic candidates, which one would be best able to take this particular fight to bushco, and best able to gain politically from the fallout?

[JohnKleeb]

1. Kucinich after all he was the only one along with Sharpton me thinks

That there were no WMDs period.

[arewethereyet]

2. nobody

because the general public does not see this as am issue.

And apparantly neither do Democrats or Senator Kerry would not be skating away fromthe pack.

[Desertrose]

3. Kucinich...see this

Kucinich Was Right
January 30, 2004

Dennis Kucinich was right - report released reveals there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Bush-appointed weapons inspector, Dr. David Kay, is mistaken in testifying to the U.S. Senate saying everyone was wrong in Washington. See the full report for more information:
http://www.kucinich.us/


also this thread right here in GD04
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=235402&mesg_id=235402

[mohc]

4. People do not like being told they were wrong....

It's a fact. People hate admitting they were wrong. While the anti-war candidates will have ample room to grill the administration on its misleading the American people into war, the candidates who did not initially oppose the war might have an easier time connecting with voters. If one of those candidates effectively comes out and says that they were duped right along with the American people, then voters might have an easier time reconciling their initial views of the war with what has developed. As of right now though, it seems Kerry is going to let the CIA take the fall instead of the administration, and Lieberman has far too much invested in the "I'm the only guy that truly likes this war" strategy. My guess is either Clark or Edwards could most benefit from a brewing scandal.

[joshcryer]

5. Dean, because he'll actually use it when he speaks.

...

[MMT]

6. What a creepy question!

No offense, but instead of asking who can best exploit this, why aren't you asking what it means that you're even asking about exploitation?

Why is the one man who's been calling bullshit on BushCo's war drums since day zero on the verge of being thrown out of the sleigh? What does it mean that two of the four Dem frontrunners voted for the invasion while the other two probably would have except that they held no federal legislative office? What does it mean that the vast majority of DUers together support those four rather than the one man who's been calling bullshit on all BushCo's stuff since the Coup?

What does it say about what our future is going to look like if one of those four guys is elected? You think there's going to be any real change from what Bush is doing?

[Skip Intro]

8. I don't know why it is that DK has been shoved aside all around

Koppel all but told him to leave the race before the first votes were cast, and now the NYT is calling for a new debate without DK or Sharpton. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that DK is not going to be elected. He should be all over the media with the Kay report now, but you hardly even hear his name mentioned. I wish it were different.

The reason I asked this question, tho, is because the issue has been dismissed by some as either something we can't "win" on, or something that the public at large just doesn't care about. But it is an issue, and one that is about to explode, imho, despite corporate media's best efforts. If I'm right about that, then it becomes a factor in the election - that is just a political reality, creepy or not.

I believe the majority of the Democratic party is outraged at what bush has done, and the tragedy that is resulting. Having a "pro-war" candidate as our nom. would not only weaken us politically where we should be showing strength, it would mute the party's ability to express the sentiments of its members. It would also mute our party's ability to take the regime to task for its lies.

What has been done by bush is a crime against humanity, decency, and democracy, and I don't mean to trivialize it in any way. But it is also a political issue now, and shows the need for an "anti-invasion" candidate for the reasons listed. Obviously, I believe that person should be Dean. But I in no way mean to dis Kucinich. He has been telling the truth about this invasion for a long time, and has my complete respect and admiration.

[blm]

7. Kerry has Joe Wilson and intel community aligned with him.

I think the campaign will be the good guys in the intel community against the Bush loyalists in the intel community.

The good guys will win. I have no doubt.

[no name no slogan]

9. Scott Ritter is endorsing DK

I believe Ritter (who voted for Bush in 2000) will be endorsing DK next week. That will draw more attention to this, too.