No WMDs in Iraq

[Nym90]

Why is the absence of WMDs in Iraq an "unfair" claim? And I think your obsession with this idea that all Bush has to do is turn out his base and he's got the election sewed up is a bit misguided. As much as you'd like to wish that it did, the GOP base does not constitute 48% of the population. It's more like 40%, and realistically as the incumbent Bush can probably count on 45% in a two-way race if he runs a decent campaign, but the lack of WMDs in Iraq definitely hurts Bush among swing voters. The only question is whether other issues can override it in importance to these voters. If the economy does improve as you say (I'm still very skeptical, but we'll see) then that would probably overshadow the war in Iraq as an issue.

Turning out the GOP base is definitely important to Bush, no question about that, but I think it's ridiculous to suggest that deceiving the American people about the existence of WMDs in Iraq helps Bush. And even some in the base must be upset about the lack of WMDs, I don't think that they all subscribe to the "end justifies the means" theory.

[Nym90]

Sure, Bush could win with 48% since he's already done it once, but I don't see any way that you can win with 48% in a two-way race. Nader isn't running as a Green, and even if he runs as an independent, I highly doubt he gets more than 1% this time. If Kerry wins the popular vote 51-48, it would be very difficult for Bush to hang on to the electoral vote. Even more difficult at 52-48.

And it's not a left wing attack at all, I think that at least some people on the right are going to be pissed about the fact that there are no WMDs in Iraq. The bottom line is that Bush was very certain that there were, he didn't just say there probably are or there might be or that there were in the past, he said that there are WMDs there now. A lot of people put their faith in him and supported the war because they trusted Bush, and now they feel betrayed. Even if Bush didn't intentionally lie, the bottom line is that he was certain that he was right, and he definitely shouldn't have been certain. Since the GOP base seems to really like Bush's honesty, it becomes an issue. You can't just dismiss it as a left wing line of attack, there is evidence there for it.

And Bush made the WMDs the number one reason for going into Iraq. If he had just made the case along the lines of human rights violations, that would have been completely different, but the number one reason for going in there was that Iraq was supposedly a threat to our national security. Bush made the WMDs the issue, and it's too late to back away from them now. You can't have it both ways, you can't just use the WMDs for political advantage and now slough it off as an issue.

[Nym90]

Oh, ok, so the entire GOP base knew that Bush was lying all along, but since it was for a good cause, then that makes it ok. The end justifies the means. I see.

9/11 was the reason for going into Iraq? I don't even hear much of anybody try to make this claim anymore. There was clearly no direct connection between Saddam and 9/11, even Bush himself pretty much admitted that, and then claimed that the charges that he was trying to establish such a link were false. Not only has Bush denied a link, he says that he never said that there was a link in the first place even. Sounds like you guys need to get your story straight....the argument I hear coming from Bush now is that Saddam was bad and that we're better off without him. I agree, but personally I don't think that's enough to justify the expense and loss of lives.

Sure, Bush could win with 48%, it's theoretically possible to win the EC with only 10% of the popular vote even, but it is highly unlikely that all of the shift toward Kerry would occur only in the red states and not at all in the blue states. (Yes, I'm using different colors than the media uses, but those are the colors Dave uses, so on this website, we should use those )

If Kerry were to win by 4 points, he would probably win Florida, Missouri, and New Hampshire (he would win all of those if the shift towards kerry was uniform nationally), and would just barely lose Ohio and Nevada if he won by exactly 4 percent and the shift was exactly uniform everywhere (which of course it almost certainly won't be on either count, so both of those would be basically complete toss ups). It would be very very likely statsitically speaking that he would win at least a couple of those 5 at a minimum. The Bush states and Gore states aren't monolithic blocks that respond certain ways to certain arguments, all states include core GOP voters, core Dem voters, and swing voters, the only difference between the Bush states and Gore states is the relative size of the GOP base and of the Dem base in each state. There are still plenty of swing voters in every state who will be swayed by the WMD arguments even if the GOP base isn't.

[Nym90]

Well, then why did Bush say he was certain there were WMDs and make it a major point in defense of the war, if it was all nonsense and a minor issue? Just use the 9/11 justification then. But Bush says there isn't a 9/11 link.

This is my point which you are failing to get, conservatives are going to be asking the same questions and be confused about it also. Your theory doesn't jibe with what Bush said.

Why did Bush put so much emphasis on WMD, and why did he say that Iraq didn't have a connection with 9/11?

Bush said he was certain there were WMDs. He shouldn't have been so certain about it. It was at the very minimum deceptive language on his part. He knew that it would sound lot better if he said there definitely are WMDs then if he had been more honest and said that he thought there were, or that there probably were, or that there had been in the past.

[Nym90]

But Bush is right, there wasn't a link between Saddam and Bin Laden. The only link that I can see is that they were both of the same race.

It's way too simplistic to assume that the entire Middle East is one big evil block of hatred against us. They oversimplify us and assume that we are all evil; let's not make the same mistake in reverse.

[Nym90]

I don't deny that it's a commonly held belief. It doesn't make it correct though, and I think that people can see beyond that kind of simplistic analysis. I don't see a groundswell of support for attacking Iran though, which you suggested was the next step. If this is Bush's plan, he owes it to the American people to discuss this before the election. Yes, Saddam was bad, but is this just phase one in a plan to take out every country that doesn't like us? That's going to be massively expensive in both lives lost and money spent. Personally, I believe that there needs to be a direct connection with 9/11 in order to justify an attack, or else clear evidence of a threat to the US or another country. I supported attacking Afghanistan and supported attacking Iraq in 1991. But this unilateralist doctrine is only going to encourage other countries to do the same. Should every country in the world be allowed to justify attacking another country just because they don't like them?

However, I think that swing voters are really upset about the WMD issue, and that resonates everywhere. We'll just have to wait for the election to see who is correct about that, as it's obviously all speculation at this point.