Democrats: Get over the authorization vote, point out repeated Administration incompetence

In Chicago last week, Cheney gave a speech in which he, among other things, ridiculed Senator Kerry for his flip-flopping over support for the Iraq conflict:

"Democrats and Republicans, obviously, are heavily engaged in the debate, as it should be. We've reached the point where a number of well known Democrats, including their most recent presidential nominee, talk about setting a firm deadline for withdrawal.

You might recall that Senator Kerry was for the war before he was against it. Somebody should do him a favor and tell him the election's over so he can stop flip-flopping."

Flip flopping on such an important issue is not a good thing. But obviously, that's not the whole story. Cheney and the Republicans continue to skewer the Democrats over the October 2002 Iraq authorization of force vote, and Democrats seem unable to mount a decent defense. What should Democrats do? Fight back with a two prong strategy that they should use in all their foreign policy speeches as well as rebuttals to Republican charges like Cheney's recent statement.

1. Explain they voted for use of force because of incorrect Administration evidence. Given only a goal of Iraqi democracy, who would have voted for the force authorization? The main reason Democrats seem unable to point out that they voted for something that was not true -- and therefore regret it -- is because of fear that such a stance will belittle the sacrifice of the troops and their families. However, Democrats and US citizens that initially supported the war need to face the facts that the conflict would not have happened when it did had the "mush room cloud" threat (see below) not been so compelling.
   
   
2. Highlight the Administration's record of mistakes and blunders. After talking about why they voted for the authorization of force, Democrats should immediately talk about how the Administration mismanaged the Iraq conflict. There's no need to make things up or interject opinion -- simply let the Administration's own word come back to haunt them.

Iraq mismanaged: Snippets of a clueless Administration

Why not start at the top, with the President. So what exactly was the Bush Administration saying in October of 2002 as they tried to convince the nation and Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq? Here's what the President said on October 7:

"It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people."

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

"If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail."

And later in a speech on April 28, 2003, after the military operations had commenced, the President said:

"Day by day, hour by hour, life in Iraq is getting better for the citizens. Yet, much work remains to be done. I have directed Jay Garner and his team to help Iraq achieve specific long-term goals. And they're doing a superb job."

And of course, who can forget the infamous May 1, 2003 speech on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln:

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." 

And for extra credit, Democrats can use some comments made in February 2003 from former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz:

In response to troop requirements: "In short, we don't know what the requirements will be. But we can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark."

In response to a question about the cost of reconstruction, perhaps in the $60 - $90 billion dollar range: "There is a lot of money there [in Iraq oil and escrow at the UN]. To assume that we are going to pay for it is just wrong."

"The notion that we are going to earn more enemies by going in and getting rid of what every Arab knows is one of the worst tyrants -- and they have many governing them--is just nonsense."

In the business world, incompetence gets you fired, or at least marginalized and ignored. So, why do we keep giving an Administration with a track record of incorrect estimates, faulty intelligence, and the inability to predict critical world events the benefit of the doubt? Why don't US citizens listening to Cheney mock instead of cheer his Kerry flip flopper comments?

At this point, the Administration should be assumed to be incorrect and misinformed until proven otherwise.