I disagree. Obviously. Go back and listen to the stump speech he gave at probably over 20 or 30 stops in the last week to two weeks before the election. He distracted most of the country from the bad economy, made those who were wavering between support or non-support uncertain, and rallied his base to turn out, which is what midterm elections are about. The whole point to beginning his drive in Sept was to make sure that there would be no time for hearings or any serious study and debate of the issue before the election.
They had no "knowledge" of WMDs, they had no knowledge of any "gathering threat," because there was none to have any knowledge of at the time.
I also think that the planners were not morons, and in their careful avoidance post-war predictions I heard genuine (&rational) uncertainty about how the war and post-war was going to play out.
Guess we heard different people. "This will be a different kind of war," crowed Rumsfeld. "The Iraqi people will dancing in the streets," said Cheney, and others implied the same. To be a "moron" and to be blind to possibility are not synonymous. The fact is the proof in this case is in the pudding--they were totally unprepared for what happened from May until... well, I would say even now. Zakaria and Holbrooke, especially the latter, shredded their turnover plan on Sunday on ABC. No one serious thinks it is a good idea for anything except for the Bush admin to have an election issue, and they all believe that that is what it is timed for, not for any reason intrinsic to the Iraqi situation on the ground. No surprise there--everything they have done for the past 2 years has been timed for one election or another. |
