Posted on 10/08/2004 9:40:58 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON — The costs and benefits of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq loom ever larger as a potential tipping point in the 2004 presidential election after the release of a definitive CIA study this week concluding that Saddam Hussein possessed neither weapons of mass destruction nor active programs to produce them.
The study comes as violence continues to plague Iraq. The situation exposes Bush to a potentially dangerous squeeze: mounting losses on the ground combined with mounting challenges to his original justification for the war.
"If the benefits seem smaller and the costs seem higher, that makes the value of [going to war] lower," said Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
The stinging report also arrived as Bush, on the eve of today's second presidential debate, unveiled an aggressive new speech intended to shift the campaign focus from his record toward the policies and character of his rival, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I wish our electorate wasn't so f--king stupid.
Read as "We are hoping... "
So of course Kerry's morphing position on Iraq doesn't send any clear message of blowing in the political wind?... Global Test? Get real.......
This country went to war on 9/11/01 and Iraq is just another front of that war... No different than Macarthur taking the Phillipines back from Japan...
We went to war on the intelligence from the CIA, now the CIA sez...we f@cked up, its all Bush's fault for listening to us.
He references the report, but I think Mr. Brownstein only read the dem talking points.
Bush needs to tell Kerry with no apology--given the mood of our nation post 9/11, he had a duty and obligation to relentlesly pursue terror groups wherever they are including Iraq. If he had failed to be aggressive in the war on terror, the DNC would be touting John Kerry's war record in our faces every minute, detailing his military experience over George Bush. Yet, we see that Bush has been strongly effective in his stance against terror and the terrorists know it.
Let's see:
"Bush has to win the debate tonight or it's all over"
"Job numbers have to be very high or it's all over"
"WMD report will decide the election"
Easy to see here - write-off the election for Kerry and try and keep folks from voting November 2.
I guess next time, we can wait until there is a mushroom cloud over New York before we act based on the best intelligence we have.
“Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him.”
Seems rather clear.
May 2003 interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews, Senator Kerry defended his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq thus: “We were presented an enormous amount of evidence by the CIA, the intelligence community, and we voted accordingly and, I think, appropriately.”
Kerry had the same information as Bush. He chose to go to war.
Public Law 107-243 states unambiguously: “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” (Emphasis added). The law cannot be any clearer. Senator Kerry authorized President Bush to use force in Iraq as he, the President, determines.
If Kerry was against it, why did he vote for it? This bill said nothing about a large international coalition or continued inspections.
I know, the democrats don't have a problem with their hypocrisy.
Good point.
Ditto that, SF - What I'd like to hear the President say is "I would rather be me, relieved at the absence of stockpiles of WMD; than you, Senator, vindictive and gloating at the absence of stockpiles of WMD.
Well I just listened to a bunch of stupid relatives parrot all this "Bush lied" routine. But they were never going to vote for Bush, not in a million years. I don't think this WMD report comes as a surprise to many, after all these months. Even if some of us don't believe it, and also we bothered to evaluate the entire thing. The media as usual only presents half the story.
Ditto. This is just what the Los Angeles Times is hoping for...until one gets into the last few paragraphs and finds out that Saddam had intentions of manufacturing even more. Once again the Left is making a big deal out of nothing. What's underreported by the MSM is the fact that many Iraqis are greatful for the U.S. taking the brutal dictator out of power.
-Regards, T.
I am familiar with the stupid relatives things....
....Geez what a pain....
I never read anything with the LA Times as a header, or for that matter, the NY Times either. If anyone believes ANYTHING they print is fair or balanced, I've got a bit of land just off the beach in Florida I would sell you. It is a small lot just east of the beach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.