|
Substance of Bush's speech
Basically, Bush's speech said, Iraq is all about 9/11 and terrorism, and everything I'm doing is about the war on terrorism.
Now, there have been many discussions on why we went into Iraq on this board, with the right-wing consensus now seeming to be that we did it for humanitarian reasons, not to combat terror, find weapons of mass destruction or position ourselves geopolitically. In other words, the thinking right has abandoned the "war on terrorism" and "find WMD" approaches to justifying the war in Iraq, but Bush hasn't.
So, does anyone thing that when the debates come and a Democrat with a record of actual service in the military makes these points that Bush will take a hit? Or will he just say "terrorism" ten times fast and get away with it?
Is Bush going to take a hit in the media (one anchor last night: "he was careful to avoid the unsupported statements of last year, but stuck to the rhetoric") for the continued use of rhetoric which doesn't seem to have a basis in fact?
|
