WMD and Monica

First rule of political warfare: Avoid handing your enemy ammunition.

Bill Clinton did it, first by doing it, then by lying about it, the second mistake outweighing the first.

Bush reversed the order by lying first, then getting caught.

Aside from morality and bad intelligence, these are major political mistakes. My question is why?

Clinton: well we all understand that at some level. It's called weakness in the face of temptation. Lying about it is pride, which, I've heard, goes before a fall. Nuff said.

Bush is a more interesting case. WMD is either blatant manipulation to sex up reasons for war, or the all time case of stove piping and blinders. Probably a little of both. But for our discussion, it's a major political risk and now major political trouble.

So I'm still askin, why do it, why take the risk of basing the war on a provable fact? It wasn't necessary. Terrorism, as vague as that is, was enough

Political issues are inherently ambiguous. Ambiguity is the life blood of a politician. The budget, Medicare, taxes, national guard duty, unemployment are all issues that have at least a 1000 interpretations.

WMD is not ambiguous. It's either there or not there. Mr. Kay told us unequivocally, that it was not. Since then, the Bush machine was begun to choke and sputter. Those suspicious of Bush now have a firm argument. True believers now have doubts. Worst of all, Bush looks dazed and confused.

Bush was thriving on ambiguities and with his machine at full steam (radio talk shows, Fox news, majority in congress), he looked unbeatable. Then David Kay came to town.

So why choose such an unambiguous reason to go to war? Arrogance is one reason. Blinders are another. A political miscalculation is a third.

They could have touted (and did really) a dozen other reasons to go to war, reasons much harder to prove. Links to Al Queda, Hussein is a bad man, possible WMD, freeing Iraqi people, creating a democratic example in the middle east, securing an oil supply. Oops, that one slipped in.

But Bush (or whoever makes his decisions) chose a provable fact and now they are caught, in a lie, a blatant lie. And unlike a White House tryst of his predecessor, Bush's lie sent the country to war and 500 soldiers are dead.

Nothing kills a politician faster then an exposed lie. Bush isn't dead yet, but get out your forks.

I get it now.

Gay marriage is a polarizing issue and forces the candidates to choose one or the other. Bush is against, Kerry, not sure. So while a voter may hate Bush, the thought gays saying I do makes him crazy, so he votes for Bush anyway. People like me and you are lost causes, but people in the middle who are generally tolerant of gays (who doesn't have a gay friend these days?) are dubious about gay marriage and forced to take a side.

Ever notice how you think while in the voting booth? There is pressure to do your duty, but you can't know all the issues, like judges or school superintendents, so you pick a name that stands out for some reason, you make a decision on the one or two facts that raise above the clatter. Karl Rove knows this about you....he knows from tons of research that there are many voters who are not quite sure about Bush or Kerry. When they step into the booth, they feel pressure, and will make a decision on the issues that rise above the clatter in their head. Gay marriage is that issue. There may be more too. Karl is a hard worker.

The gays aren't voting for Bush. The city folk don't like him. But middle American...they don't know yet. He's a good Christian but poor on budget and Iraq seems like a mess. But those damned gays want to get married. I hope my son or daughter aren't gay. Why do they dress funny and prance around at parades?

I get it now....

Boy newsmax is scary...

Hanoi Jane and John Kerry. Wasn't Kerry a war hero? So lets see, Bush was AWOL from the gaurd but unpunished because he was a rich boy....and Kerry was a war hero returning home to protest a bad war.

I guess it's a good sign, Newsmax grasping a straws.

www.newsmax.com

Brilliant Move for Bush
The Old Potomac Two-Step

LA Times today

The issue of WMD is effectively dead until March 2005. Good move Mr. Bush. Of course the commission is stacked, but the most important criteria is not what you think. The most important criteria was whether a member is a leaker or not. We can't have any nasty leaks in October or November.

The beauty of the March 2005 date is, of course, is that by then no one will care. The commission could report that Hussan was a third floor guest at the White House and no one will care. Also, by March 2005, many of the major players will be gone. We know Powell isn't coming back. Cheney might be on the ropes, even Rice and Rumsfeld could be 86ed. When your gone, your a great scapegoat.

I personally believe the commission CYA was worked out before the war. WMD is too big a gamble not to have a little CYA built in.

Bush wanted to base the war on WMD, which is easily verifiable and therefore a huge gamble. But the gamble was worth it because the war argument needed some punch. To cover their butts if the gamble collapsed (which it did), they figured a presidential commission would kill the issue for the election. Otherwise, WMD would be too risky and Rove/Hughes would never agree.

The proof is in the timing of the events. They search for WMD all year. Kay gives his damning report in Jan 2004. When the roar gets to fever pitch, the commission is announced with utmost seriousness and but the work isn't due til after the election. When questioned about WMD during the election, Bush rambles on about the commission bla, bla, bla.

It brilliant.

Some where, Machiavelli is grinning ear to ear.

Honor, What Honor?

Bush is spinning this WMD scandal like a Stephi Graph drop shot (which she could put right over the net in her day). The White House knew there was no WMD and that their man, David Kay, would testify to that fact and the press would get crazy.

They had their spin misters Rice and Powell ready. And the cream on the cake was to announce a Presidential commission whose sole purpose is to deflect WMD questions throughout the campaign.

Bush controls the timing and the commission members. Isn't that convenient? Results expected back sometime next year-after the election.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0202-01.htm

I don't mind the Machiavellian tact, but I do mind the self-righteous rhetoric in the face of dying soldiers. Fudging budget numbers is one thing, but taking a peaceful nation to war on lies is another. If you are going to kill 500 G.I.s and wound thousands more, not to mention Iraqis, have the guts to tell us the truth about your reasons. Jesus would have.