So the NYT writes a story about missing explosives. What does our blogging Bush campaign member say?
Our team reads it and predicts (accurately) that those guys will assume the worst (about our military), ignore the reality (that Saddam had lots of weapons and was a threat), and sidestep their own previous sidesteps (around their convoluted position on the War).
So, the Stentorian Senator wants to talk about Iraq, Saddam’s weapons, and our safety in the world.
Ok, fine by us at the campaign.
Meanwhile, inside the US government, I know that hard-working military, intelligence and homeland security experts will continue to bust their tail-ends in the daily struggle to make us safer. They’re succeeding, folks, because we’re on offense and we’re fighting the worst of them over there, on their turf.
Then later in the day, NBC breaks with the fact that the explosives weren’t there on I-Day, and he writes:
Turns out, our troops (and NBC) took the facility the day after the liberation of Iraq on 4/9/03, and voila! The weapons weren’t there when the military arrived.
Our troops were on top of the site from the start and the material in question wasn’t there.
So, lesson seems to be, if you throw out your campaign playbook for the day because of one headline, better make sure it’s gonna hold up.
So while I think Tucker might be overly optimistic about how this story will play out, I think its very interesting that he was able to predict so accurately the end result. Its an interesting insight into the two candidates that Kerry’s weakness is his lack of trust…
Recent Comments