The Iraq War as an Election Issue

The war in Iraq is beginning to have a distinct Groundhog Day (search) feel to it...

It was a year ago today we were arguing about the merits of a war to dislodge Saddam Hussein (search). We talked about weapons of mass destruction (search), as well as human rights violations and the regime's government by murder.

Today, it's the same argument. The difference is that now, we're in Iraq, we control it — if it can said to be controllable — and we have Saddam and many of his henchmen in custody.

Yet no WMD... yet.

Nobody will say that Saddam should be back in power, so why are they saying the war was wrong? Because they want George W. Bush out of office.

Sens. John Kerry (search) and Jay Rockefeller (search) may say President Bush lied about the reasons to go to war. They didn't listen closely enough. He said Saddam was a danger and that we dared not wait too long to act.

If Saddam had gotten another year, there would no possibility for war. After all, no president goes to war in an election year unless he absolutely has to.

This president went to war because getting rid of Saddam was overdue, and last year was a good time to do it. He was weak, we were strong. Why wait for him to gather strength?

So why are the Democrats saying we should have waited? Do they really believe Saddam should have stayed in power? That can't be true...

So one is left to conclude this is an election issue, and that saying the president lied is just a way to win an election.

That's My Word.

What do you think? We'd like to hear from you, so send us your comments at Some of your e-mails will be featured on the air or on our site.

Looking for previous My Word columns?
  Click here!