Will we be able to challenge bush on the war?

[redqueen]

How will the WMD lies affect the presidential election?

Will it matter if our candidate can only say about the Iraq WMD intel, 'hey, they fooled me too!'? IMO it will. A lot.

Let's hope the debate focuses on jobs. :(

[mmonk]

1. The answer is no

if things keep going as they are.

[democratreformed]

2. I'm really glad you asked this question.

Monday night, I was doing phone calls to Oklahoma for Clark. I talked to one lady who said Clark was not on her list b/c she was in favor of what we are doing in Iraq and she was aware the Clark was opposed to it. I can't explain how shocked I was. That's the first person I have EVER talked to since the run-up to the war began that said that. You know those polls that show that 60-something percent of Americans are in favor of this war? I have always though they were full of crap. Now, I wonder just how much support there is out there for this war.

On edit: I do think that jobs and the economy could be the winning issue.

[mmonk]

3. sad in a way

America has really left it's tradition behind.

[redqueen]

4. Just out of curiosity

How many other Democrats have said that same thing to you?

Also, let's not dismiss the fiscal aspect of the Iraq war. Going to war because of a threat of WMD's is one thing. Now that the lies are becoming more noticeable to the whore media, and as a result the American public, things aren't so cut and dry.

The cost of that war is going to become much more of an issue as the lies and hype are exposed, and I fear the public will not be motivated to vote if the choice is between 'fooled me!' and 'fooled me, too!', when it's their $300 billion that's just been wasted on the basis of those lies.

[HereSince1628]

5. Bush, Kerry & Edwards may all claim to have been misled

by the intelligence agencies. There is really no other way for them to go. Bush can't say "I put the fix in on the estimates."

Kerry and Edwards will take this position because otherwise they'd have to admit they weren't bright enough to listen to the UN inspectors on-going reporting in the fall of '02.

_IF_ either Kerry or Edwards is the surviving nominees the only way to nail Bush on mishandling intelligence from outside the campaign.

[redqueen]

6. I don't think it will matter

The mishandling of the intelligence won't matter because it will seem as if 'both parties did it'. In other words, if bush successfully pins it on Intel agencies then we have nothing to challenge bush on the war with. The public won't care that bush cooked it up to 'fool' Kerry & Edwards -- they'll just see that all three came to the same conclusion so what's the big deal?

And we already know about Patriot Act and how that will go. 'I like it and we need more.' vs. 'I think some parts need to be changed but overall I like it and we need more.' (Or have Kerry Edwards or Clark talked about the patriot act II tidbit that was snuck into another bill?)

[HFishbine]

7. If that's what you're counting on, scratch Edwards off your list

He's adamant that he wasn't mislead. He still thinks the war was the right thing to do. He'll have no room to criticize Bush. The war will be a moot issue if Edwards is the nominee.

------------

MATTHEWS: Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[redqueen]

8. I knew there was a reason I zoned out during certain answers

given at debates. :(

"And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people."

Bush couldn't have said it any better himself.

[NNN0LHI]

9. And if he would have told the truth and said over 500 soldiers had died...

...for nothing he would get two votes during a GE. His and his wifes. Dean said getting Saddam did not make us safer. I agree with that statement. Look where that got him.

Don