Reply #13: Dems are blowing this line of defense, IMO.

[gulliver]

Trying to beat the rap on the IWR won't work. It is producing the "He said, she said" muddle that the Republicans want. In the end, the public will be left thinking the "Maybe the Dems voted for the war too."

I think a much more effective line of attack puts the burden of proof on Republicans, especially Bush. Bush must be forced to prove that he kept his side of the IWR bargain with the Congress. Namely, Bush has to prove that he sought, in your words, "ALL OTHER AVENUES."

At the presidential level, records are kept, orders are issued officially, and plans are made in writing. There is no other way to coordinate a large group of people. Ergo, there should be testimonial or written evidence that Bush sought other means to achieve our goals without invasion. Also, there should be evidence that Bush planned for the post-war as he has said. Why isn't there any?

At the presidential level, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If Bush can't prove that he kept the IWR bargain he made with Congress, a bargain he asserts he kept to this day, then Bush will become the skunk in the trunk. The Dems can then proudly say they voted for the IWR to support their president across party lines, but the Republican administration, clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt, acted in bad faith.