Was he being honest in the buildup to war? It's hard to know, since he's so fatally inarticulate he hasn't been able to mount a clear defense of the rhetoric that was flying around before the invasion.
Just a few months ago I felt certain the nation's security depended upon proving to our enemies that Americans will stand behind a war leader, and I felt pretty confident that a majority of American voters would agree with me and re-elect Bush, if for no other reason than for that one alone. Lately I've started to go wobbly on that position.
If the Democrats can make a case that his war leadership has harmed the country unnecessarily and done little to enhance our security, they can win. The Bush team had better get off its butt and start explaining why Iraq was worth 800 lives, thousands wounded, billions of the nation's treasure, and the heavy hit our reputation and standing has taken around the world.
Or else Bush will be a one termer just like his Daddy.
Sooner or later the Saudi regime will fall. When that happens, would the US be in a better position with a friendly Iraq, or a militant Saddam's Iraq, that aligned with Syria, Iran, and Wahhabi/AQ SA would surround tiny Kuwait and Bahrain? Not to mention the oil situation, the weak link in our economy....
Is that you, Moby?
Two big problems for Bush:
The economy isn't in better shape than when he came in. The markets are still down (killing SS privatization) and unemployment is up. The tax cuts are good but not being played up enough.
Many people I know consider that the war on Iraq drew resources away from the war on terrorism. They were saying this long before the attack on Iraq. Ben-Laden is still at large; Al-Qaeda is seen as stronger than ever; Iraq is seen as another quagmire.
Of course, "Kerry isn't Bush" may not be enough to win; it's a good start though.
I suspect the best they can do in this regard is to gain agreement on the Buckley/Will line: knowing what we do now the same decision would not have been made, but at the time we acted on the best information we had.
Not a very compelling case, and how do you make it? The administration is virtually forced to maintain its stance that Iraq had WMDs and a link to Al Qaeda, even while less and less of the public believes it to be the case.
If we did not take out Saddam Hussein, the Islamist-Arab world right about now would have fanned themselves into flames of invincibility by convincing themselves that America is scared and too weak.
Secondly, I always harken back to the saying: If a rattlesnake is poised and ready to strike, you don't wait until its fangs are embedded in your flesh before you act.
Thirdly, and I am tired of hearing people like yourself go wobbly, do you really think that Iraq and AlQaeda had a signed contract verifying their support and each of their specific roles in their quest to attack America??
The Iraqi's were giving tacit support, monetary and training, to the very terrorists who attacked us. Were we supposed to just give them a tongue lashing??
Lemme guess. You wear a bowtie and pay 5 bucks for a cup of coffee.