Matthews said the other day on Hardball that "whoever is right on this question" (whether -- irrespective of WsMD -- it was right to invade Iraq) should be the next president.
Assuming that it was "right" to invade (if not in human rights terms than it "public perception" terms) how in the world can the democrats sell the idea that Bush should be replaced?
In other words, I'm very conflicted about whether we should have invaded Iraq (my justificaiton would be the human rights atrocities committed there.
I'm fully aware that this can't be logically extended to different states who perpetrate human rights abuses, but want to elminate/narrow that aspect of the debate also).
I'm also aware that it is fairly weak to invade in 2003 for atrocities that occurred in 1988, but then again, I was outraged that Bush I encouragd an uprising against Sadaam and then abandoned them. It would be a bit disingenuous for me to drop the notion that "Sadaam should go" because it is Bush II doing the ousting rather than, say, Bill Clinton.
Is Matthews just wrong on this one? Can we, as Democrats, win in 2004 if it was "right" or perceived to be "right" to oust Hussein by runnning on the idea that we invaded in the "wrong way" as Dean argues -- i.e., too hastily, without U.N. support, and premised on lies?
Put another way, if WsMD were a pretext for war, does the pretext matter if it turns out that, on balance, the invasion was a "good thing?"