The Other Side reads this Times story and decides, "That's our topline message of the day."
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.]
But most of you are focused on the election and I gotta say we're on offense at the campaign, too. Lots of positive signs in states that went for the Other Side last time.
More later. Sorry I don't have time to respond to most of the input and commentary.