What influence will it have on the next presidential election in the USA if no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq?
Can’t separate that effect alone from the larger pattern of lies and arrogance and waste of lives. That combination will have an effect, certainly.
Why do you think Bush needs an unprecedent $200 million re-election war chest? TV ads cost money, after all.
Not much IMHO, because:
– Most voters are concerned with the future, not the past
– Most voters accept that there were adequate reasons to overthrow Saddam: unspeakable cruelty of the regime: possibility of WMDs: failure to cooperate with the UN; past attacks on Kuwait, Israel, Iran, etc.
– Many voters (perhaps wrongly) consider Saddam and OBL to be likely allies
– Those voters who would see the missing WMDs as proof that Bush lied are mostly Bush’s enemies. They will vote against him no matter what.
T. Mehr, with your permission I would request expanding this thread to include the question:
What influence will it have on the next presidential election in the USA if evidence of weapons of mass destruction or WMD programs is found? **
Probably none at all, voters with cognitive skills and a memory will know that a WMD program (always assuming that one turns up) is not the same as the massive stockpiles ready to launch at a moments notice, the location of which we supposedly at least had a good idea. Others will have bought the post war rationalizations. Either way, I am pretty sure that most folks have made up their minds about the election at this point (although I would be pleasantly surprised to hear from any fence sitters).
I think the major effect it will have will be on Bush’s credibility. The democratic nominee can for example argue that if there is actually a country with WMDs out there that is a threat to us Bush would not have the credibility necessary to go after it. Also the nominee can argue that Iraq was a war of choice and it has made us less safe because the war on terror was ignored.
A much bigger thing will be how the Iraq war plays out. I think that if it doesn’t go well then people will also lose faith in Bush’s competence. People can justify voting for a liar, but it is much harder to justify voting for someone who is incompetent.
Exactamundo! If the overall situation in Iraq deteriorates significantly, WMDs (or lack thereof) will play a big supporting role in Bush’s demise. If the situation improves, it won’t matter. If it stays the same, it’s be of secondary importance.
But then, the report expected in Sept may change this either way.
But Bush’s greatest weakness is the phrase “Where is Osama?”
Properly used, it could put a stuffed halibut in the White House, as it stands, much less the array of candidates out there right now.
Even without significant deterioration, the massive ongoing costs of reconstruction are likely to raise political problems for Bush. Cutting the pay increases for federal workers to help pay for Iraq will gain him the enmity of bureaucrats, and slashing popular programs to the same end will irritate voters, even as the deficit grows by leaps and bounds. That deficit will bother the Wall street crowd. Bush desperately needs to find someone to help pay for this adventure, or the absence of WMD’s will be the cross to which his presidency is nailed.
Still like december said voters are more worried about the future than the past… and even WMD being found might not be enough to convince them Iraq was worthwhile. I doubt many WMD will be found anyway… big deposits should have been found by now.
I don’t disagree with that, but when the war starts to eat into that future with deficits, fewer services, casualties, the WMD deception issue will be prepositioned as a way for people to let themselves off the hook for supporting an invasion that they no longer feel is in their best interests.
At the very least I think that they are making a few right steps in Iraq. Bush said he was willing to cede some control of Iraq as long as an American commander is in charge and Bremer finally is saying that investment is important.
It is a long way from fixing the problem, but I think that they finally realise that Iraq is actually a problem.
Permission granted, also I’m glad the discussion didn’t drift into “Do they exist or don’t they?”
But I guess the answer is simple. If they’d be found it would help Bush a great deal. But how many supporters would turn away from him if they’d get the feeling they were missled? Is it really only those who wouldn’t vote for him in the first place?
Hmmmm, I thought the whole indictment of Clinton was about him lying and not about smoking a cigar. So it must mean something to the public if they are lied at. But you’re right it’s a combination of credibility and competence. One could argue, that Bush has low ratings on both at the moment.
The Clinton thing was about the sex or “sex”… the legal argument only was about lying. If americans were worried about lying thing world affairs would be different…
What is the WMD found are pitiful and of very low quality ? Hardly better than insecticides ? After all WMD must be dangerous to be worth killing and invading people…
WMD’s found or not found, it is a sadly irrelevant question by now. The majority of the electorate is incapable or unwilling to make the distinction between the pre-war official justification and the post-war rationalizations. Political cynicism is so ingrained and the U.S. public (unlike the Brits) is so tired of spin, manipulation, and exaggeration that they have come to expect the worst and will accept it as “just the way things are”. The average Jane/Joe just wants it all over with.
“It’s the economy, stupid” - 2004 will turn on whether people are employed or likely to become so in the near turn. If no WMD’s are found, it will simply confirm people’s belief that the bankruptcy of the Texas Rangers organization was no fluke. If they are found, OK, so Dubya was right, but where’s my paycheck?
WMD’s found or not found, it is a sadly irrelevant question by now. The majority of the electorate is incapable or unwilling to make the distinction between the pre-war official justification and the post-war rationalizations. Political cynicism is so ingrained and the U.S. public (unlike the Brits) is so tired of spin, manipulation, and exaggeration that they have come to expect the worst and will accept it as “just the way things are”. The average Jane/Joe just wants it all over with.
“It’s the economy, stupid” - 2004 will turn on whether people are employed or likely to become so in the near term. If no WMD’s are found, it will simply confirm people’s belief that the bankruptcy of the Texas Rangers organization was no fluke. If they are found, OK, so Dubya was right, but where’s my paycheck?