RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Now he's frantically trying to rewrite history.

Of all the events that occured during Dubya's presidency this was the biggest blunder. By structuring the context of the debate around WMD and eschewing the basic tennents of his own guiding philosophy to simplify the discussion the administration placed all the weight of the war squarely on the back of faulty data. The war was still morally just. The war was still necessary as part of our new global strategy to combat world terrorism. But by structuring the discussion in the manner they did the administration failed to make the case for the more expansive justification for its actions. After the slam dunk went off the rim the liberal spin meisters had a field day claiming the war then was unjust when it was nothing of the sort. Bush however was never able to regain the upperhand on this issue and every death in Iraq was reason for the Pusillanimous Left to cry wrong war and pin the death on Bush. The reality is there is never a right war for them but that's another debate.

Yes, but Saddam and company might have been considering getting WMD, so I'm glad we blew his country to hell.

This isn't the exact thought in peoples' minds of why Bush shouldn't get reelected. But their thought is along those lines. Iraq will be the single most important thing to harm Bush this election. And why did we go? He said they have WMD's. Now, the dying soldiers and the chaotic destruction may be slightly bigger in voters' minds, but in the backs of all their minds, they remember the WMD's.

I think the entire Iraq situation is going to almost kill his reelection campaign. The 'high' casualties, the soldier's misconducts, the daily attacks, the rebellions, the loss of allies, the declaring of major combat stages being over in Iraq, etc. All this makes it seem like Bush has no control over the situation. But, most of all, the WMD not being. The government scared the sh*t out of the American people when they said Saddam had mobile launching facilities, that he could launch an attack from multiple scuds, from a cross Atlantic aircraft, that he had stockpiles upon stockpiles of weapons, that he had a nuclear program, etc. I don't think anyone likes to be lied too, but I also don't think people like to be scared sh*tless. If he losses because of anything, it is because of this. I know a lot of people are just voting for Kerry because they don't like Bush.

If this is an issue, Kerry shouldn't be elected either.

Because this is the thing the public has heard about most in the news, this is likely the most damaging fact of all.

With many another sitting president, sending troops to war under false pretenses would have had more of an effect on the average voter. Enough Americans were so thirsty to avenge 9-11, that few bothered to realize the war in Iraq had shifted focus away from al Qaida to a much lamer threat. Winning some nifty oil contracts for Haliburton wasn't worth it.

The whole war is a sham.

If there were no WMD then why did Saddam not let the inspectors back in. Why would he even risk war with the USA if they were not going to find any thing. Pretty easy to loose stuff in a dessert or send it to a friendly nation.

Perhaps people should consider that Bush did not invade Iraq just because of the percieved wmd threat, but because it would allow Iraq to become another front in the war on terror. The wmd had little to do with it.

The fact that Saddam Hussein gassed his own people has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there have been no WMD's in Iraq. If George W. Bush's reason for war with Iraq was to get rid of the horrible dictator I would be fine with it. But it wasn't, and it never was. Show me evidence that Bush's ultimate reason for going to war in Iraq was to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and I'll retract everything I just said. Bush's reason for war was WMD's threat to America, which never really was. And, for the record, if I lived under the regime of Saddam Hussein, I would be very thankful that the Americans came in and got rid of him. But, if they bombed my house and in the process killed my family members I think I would be a little too preoccupied with grief and mourning to bake them a cake for their hard work.

huh, didn't he gas his own people with them. Instead of blaming bush for lying about what everyone once agreed, maybe you doubters should be worried about where they are????

Damaging, but unfortunately not incriminating. And by the way: there not in Syria and there not hidden. Tell the good people of Aniston, Mississippi that you can just magically cover-up huge stores of chemical and biological agents.

They are there, trust me. Perhaps they were moved to Syria (another villain in the axis of evil) or another country. And, if not, so what, Hussein was an evil, power-mad dictator who executed millions of his own people while he lived in his castle.

Like others have already remarked, I feel that Saddam and company were the true WMD's on the scene. This, to my way of thinking, also says that yes, this kind of wack job would probably use just about anything to get his psychotic way...and, yes he would also be willing and able to flush the stuff when he was about to be busted. Especially when we were busy announcing every 5 minutes that we were getting ready to get ready. Geez, he probably had one of those little map screens they have on the backs of airplane seats watching as we slowly inched our way over.

This is just anotther example of how most american people are nothing more than retard Children. Like Seriously in Hitlers day they had a minister of propaganda, today it is Fox, CBS, and TNN. I know it sounds harsh but the truth hurts, and some people in Nazi Germany would say the same thing including the Jews in the beging that what Hitler done was right, and they were attacked by Polland when really they were nothing more than war mongers wanting to go to war.

I was so glad to see that a good majority of folks called this thing the way I do. Saddam and his offspring were enough reason to go to war..PERIOD. Im very disappointed that we are not being thanked by the Iraqis more that we hear about. Unfortunately if they are, the left wing press will be doing all they can to make sure we don't know aboutit. There is a part of me (the angry and somewhat unrealistic voice in me) That believes that no matter what we do, these people as a whole will never find peace. They have been religious war mongers for hundreds of years and it is just there way. Call it ignorance or just a people who just dont have a lot in there lives to find happiness about, we cannot get through to them. I want very much sometimes to just drop a big one on all of them, put them out of there misery but that would make us no better than them. I think the world just might be a better place without the whole middle east. I want to believe that there is a population of kind and good people there but the ignorants are too many. I just hope that our guys over there see some of what they deserve..a people who appreciate them for what they are dying for. Where president Bush is concerned, like his father, he just seems to be the kind of guy who wants to do what is right even though it may not be the easy or popular. For that reason alone I will vote for him again without question.

It should be highly damaging. . .it should be cause for impeachment hearings. . .but Americans don't care about it. Attacking this president means that American kids are dying for a lie- and American's won't accept that. . .thus they ignore the WMD fiasco.

I don't know how much of an impact this is having on public opinion, but it's at least a small impact. I agree with PBeavr that people who have their minds set in either extreme aren't going to change their minds regardless of proof or the absence of it, and it's the undecided voter who will make the difference in such a close race. Whether this will impact the people's vote enough to make a difference in the election, though, is difficult to tell.

I don't really think that the WMD issue has specifically damaged Bush politically. People don't really seem to care about whether or not we've found the WMD. What could be damaging is the President's insistance that there is an al-Qaeda-Saddam connection there which justified the war in the first place. People are very present oriented, they want results. If they see that the war effort is going poorly, it is going to damage Bush. The voters see the WMD issue as largely ancillary. His opponents are going to beat the issue half to death, but most people aren't looking at that. Largely because of Bush's media team, the voters connect Iraq with the war on terrorism and that benefits him a lot, even though Iraq has little if anything to do with the matter. But there is another side to this. If the people see terrorism on the increase, they may begin to question Bush's standing as a war president, which a key strategy in Bush's playbook. It's already fairly clear that whatever WMD there may have been in Iraq was clearly no threat to the United States or its interests. Additionally, both Saddam and his two sons were being contained. Bush really overblow the threat, the peak came when VP Cheney claimed that Saddam had an aerial drone that should spray biological elements over cities along the East Coast. Personally the whole matter surrounding WMD has caused me to question the integrity of Bush's leadership. Either he is severely prone to hubris or he deceived the country into war. But that's all in the past. Right now, we've got to focus in on establishing stability and getting out of that country. In my view, our presence in Iraq has caused a upsurge in terrorism not only in Iraq but throughout the world. We must defeat terrorism, but at same time we have to become a more benign influence if we expect to isolate and beat back the problem.

So far Ive found three and then some. Saddam and his two sons were the WMDs. We have also found articles and that gas stuff they found. Not a WMD per say, but clearly shows that Saddam wanted as many weapons as he could. Either way, I don't think this will have as much as in impact as everyone thinks, except for the farthest of left wingers. (Who wouldn't vote for Bush to begin with.)

Many of you are overlooking the fact that in the past WMD's were found and destroyed in Iraq. It also makes sense that Saddam had plenty of time to move WMD's before we invaded. Bottom line: the world is safer for us removing Saddam. The terrorists know that as long as Bush is in the White House, there will be no negotiating-the USA will not tolerate acts of terrorism and the reaction to it will be swift and strong. Terrorists fear us, and they should. I fear Sen. Kerry will not have the same strong reaction as Pres. Bush.

I think the suspicion on the part of swing voters that the Bush Administration needlessly led the country into a messy war could send some voters over to the Kerry side. Especially if the transfer of power to Iraq doesn't go smoothly. Lack of WMD's is one piece of this. Allegations that Bush planned this war before 9/11 is another. Lack of evidence of a link between Bin Laden and Hussein is a third link. With one of these events, probably not a big deal. But as the evidence continues to mount that Iraq was in no way a threat to us, and the bodies keep coming back from the Middle East, it could definitely swing some votes.