This inspection report presents us with a great opportunity to open a dialogue with leaners about Bush's now-demonstrated error in judgment on Iraq.
Inspired by the diary of a visiting conservative who wanted to know "Why Kerry?", together with the recent inspection report news, I wrote a substantial comment about Bush and Iraq.
Upon rereading it, I believe that the resulting essay/letter/email/argument could be useful in convincing a leaner. If you agree, feel free to swipe my text and use it to get us some more votes.
Let's assume the best of the president. Let's take the position that he was not lying during the run-up to the war, and honestly believed everything he was saying.
He had no hard evidence of WMD. He had no hard evidence of functioning WMD programs. He had no hard evidence of terrorist connections.
What he had was a belief - a belief - that Saddam Hussein was a grave and gathering threat. That belief was based on arguments and rhetoric among certain philosophical segments of those in and around our government.
The only piece of the Bush administration's threat assessment that was real then and still real now is that Saddam Hussein hated us. Well take a number, Mr. Hussein. You're just another grumpy impotentate.
He was powerless, as the weapons inspection reports have consistently shown over the last 10 years. NOT a threat worth diving headfirst into the deadliest snakepit on the planet.
The President of the United States of America went to war on faith. Not evidence. Faith.
He. Was. Wrong.
That's the beauty of demanding hard evidence before going to war -- you're right every time! Imagine that.
We can argue till we're blue in the face and hypoxic enough to vote LaRouche into office about the hindsight question. But the inarguable point is simply this: Bush's standard for preemptive action is demonstrably too low. Kerry's is much more reasonable: he wants his decisions to be backed by solid evidence so that they survive the scrutiny of the electorate.
Add in to this equation the fact that Kerry has proven that he will accept new evidence, listen to opposition, and modify his views and strategy in the face of new data; Bush, on the other hand, to this day sticks to his failed decision.
Any president must -- MUST -- be accountable for his decisions. Accountability means admitting your errors and laying out a plan for how you will do better going forward. Accountability means taking your lumps.
Remember that press conference where Bush couldn't think of a single mistake he'd ever made? That shows a dangerous self-delusion and false sense of infallibility. No way can, or should, such a man be the Commander in Chief.
I'm voting for a man who will make damn sure it's the right thing to do before costing the world thousands of irreplaceable human lives. I'm voting against a man who has shown poor judgment in the biggest life and death decision of my generation.