Iraq: still a political winner for the Republicans? Part 2
Continued from the previous post: So where did Kerry and Bush differ on Iraq? Well, for one, Kerry didn't lie to the American people about there being nuclear weapons in Iraq. Like many sensible Americans (including, um, Framebot), Kerry was fooled by Bush's various lies and misrepresentations and supported the war because he thought Saddam had WMD's. Instead of attacking Bush for the actual bad things he did (lying about the reasons for going to war, going to war against Saddam instead of Osama) he attacked Bush for not being friendly enough with the French and the UN, whom most swing voters hate! These attacks rang so hollow because most Americans weren't mad at Bush for failing to respect the UN or failing to institute a draft but for starting a mostly counterproductive war on false premises. Kerry did float a "I was fooled by Bush" meme trial balloon around March of 2004, but, relying on the worthless focus group data of the win-phobic Bob Shrum, he eventually dropped it and resumed bitching endlessly about how he would have been nicer to our allies. Perhaps he was spooked by the ridiculous arguments of Iraq War defenders, exemplified by that unlikely president of the Iraq War Fanclub, Christopher Hitchens, in his June 2004 Slate article (I believe the Slate date is a year off) The Gullible Mr. Kerry. Hitchens, drunk perhaps on the heady rush of our initial success in toppling Saddam, parrots the frail talking point deployed by Bush's loyal soliders at NRO and other places: Would you rather vote for the brave leader with the boldness to fudge the truth about a disastrous war or for the naive schmuck whom he fooled? The obvious answer here is the naive schmuck, but for some reason Kerry and Shrum never quite saw that, and yet another brick was added to the wall of Kerry's horrible, failed campaign. Tomorrow: How the Democrats can (and probably will) make the same mistake and lose again on the Iraq issue in 2006.