Yes, but the MSM has done an incredible job of setting the agenda and getting the WH on the defensive about WMD. It's easy to look up the often repeated reasons for the invasion but it all comes down to "You said there were WMD and there were no WMD."
But even if they dont get him on this, they'll try to impeach him for trying to connect the dots and if they fail on that they'll try to impeach him for failing to connect dots. They're nasty!
That's as perfect a summation of their tactics as I've seen. Look at the NSA wiretap stories; they amount to very little, but their frequency of appearance is such that the average American thinks "wiretaps" and thinks "Bush is doing something wrong." Look at Katrina, same deal.
One of Bush's major and repeated failures was in choosing and then not firing Ari Fleisher and Scott McLellan as press secretaries. He needed a Tony Snow right from the start--personable but not afraid to correct the blatant lies of the MSM (which will demonize him very quickly).
Someone so savvy about politics as Rove has to have some flaws, and his has been a major one: The choice of spokeman for this Administration.
All or at least almost all of Bush's problems as president can be traced to his inability to get his side of the story accepted by a majority of the American people. When the experts in message are all on the other side, you are doomed.
If the Dems take over in the next election, I will assume that Bush is very likely to be pushed out of office. The Dems know this and are trying not to get it out. But their supporters are so overflowing with hatred for the man that they see this as their third shot at him after 2000 and 2004, their third and last shot at him. And they want blood.
Exactly! And when Bush does wrong (and it hasn't been often I'm not afraid to say it. I've been very upset over the immigration deal, but this WMD BS is just that. Pure lies. And the American media now has Saddam, Bin Laden and now the Iranian leader parroting them on the so-called "WMD Lies".
If the Dems take over in the next election, I will assume that Bush is very likely to be pushed out of office. The Dems know this and are trying not to get it out. But their supporters are so overflowing with hatred for the man that they see this as their third shot at him after 2000 and 2004, their third and last shot at him. And they want blood.
If that is the case that Bush might be impeached if the dems get in power, then I don't understand some of the Preisdents latest decisions. If I was in danger, which I don't think he is, I would certainly be making the conservatives as happy as I possibly could. That is the only thing I don't understand from him.
I get the impression the Dems believe if Pres. Bush is impeached it will make Mr.Clintons impeachment look minor which IMHO is even more delusional than the usual left wing fantasy but being somewhat delusional has never even slowed them down.
IMO, they are not working in their own or the countries best interests but they think they are right above all else so I expect impeachment issue to be part of the campaign for some Dems.
Also on WMD, are the Dems disappointed that these weapons were not in Iraq for Hussein to use against our troops?
Instead of the number of killed in 3 years it would have been that number or more in a few hours.
I do not get the point of the complaint of no WMD found yet in Iraq. I never have.
I am relieved that so far there has not been a WMD attack but the Dems always sound somewhat disappointed.