Does anyone suspect that the Bush strategy re Iraq & WMD has been...

[AP]

...to lure the left into criticizing Bush re WMD by leaking all the bad evidence for over a year, and then spend the last three months before the election leaking some of the reliable evidence?

This is the problem with running a campaign solely on the war issue. Bush has a lot of control over Iraq and the perception of Iraq. When all the focus is on Iraq, and none of it is on the wealth transfer to the wealthy, Bush can win with discussions about Wilson and about the other evidence of the quest for Niger's uranium.

Also, it plays to one of Bush's natural strengths: he loves to look like the guy who was unfairly criticized. Somehow, he gets points when he's attacked. People feel sorry for him. It's crazy, but it happens.

I've suspected this was how things would play out. On February 16, my prediction was this:

"I'm so sure the media is playing up the bad intelligence on instructions from Rove to encourage (1) the ouster of Tony Blair, and (2) to encourage Dems to focus only on this issue, and not jobs and the economy.

AFter the conventions, all we'll hear about Iraq (if we hear anything) will be about the good intelligence which Edwards and Clinton say they saw, and we'll all feel that poor Georgie was the victim of an overzealous press."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=342728#343047

On Sep 4, '03, my prediction, in a discussion re Dean, was:

I think that, perhaps after it's clear that Blair isn't going to fall down over WMD claims, it will be discovered that Hussein was probably developing a nuclear program which he hid outside the country. I think that, although this isn't quite worthy of the bullshit Bush perpetrated on Iraq in my mind, a majority of Americans will think that invasion was the right thing.

I think that Dean will be made to look silly for opposing the war.

I think people who phrased the issue as follows, "we didn't have the option of ignoring the intelligence which was presented without any evidence at the time that it was incorrect" and "what matters most is what we do next...we have to allow Iraq to control its own destiny and profit from its own resources; we can't let a dictator, whether it be an Iraqi dictator or an American dictator pillage the nation's wealth", will be the ones who played the issue right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=276836#278400

I wonder if these predictions are what we see unfolding with the Berger story (shifting blame nonsensically to Clinton) and the Wilson story. I wonder if there will be more shit like this coming down the pike.

[the Kelly Gang]

1. expect anything over the next 3 months..many surprises

[Birthmark]

2. I doubt it.

Bush has spent what, $160 million on his campaign already and he's still behind? That seems remarkably wasteful if he knew he had an ace up his sleeve the whole time. It's possible, but not probable, imho.

[shraby]

3. One word....

Diebold

[JI7]

4. sooo, you think Kerry read your posts when considering vp pick ?

hehhe, but seriously, i think kerry had the same thing in mind which explains his campaign strategy especially with the pick of edwards. i read some of the advice bill clinton gave to kerry and it was along the same lines.

[AP]

5. I know Chris Heinz did.

ahem.

;)