I still think the most important line for Kerry to push is Bush's incompetence in everything he and his administration have done.

But I'm happy with the "misleader" angle. I think there's some real potential there. Or I would think so if we didn't have a press that thought that Dan Rather and CBS were far more important than the election of a president in like 40 days. But whatevers!

This stuff from Seymour Hersh in Salon has a little of both angles:

In March 2002, Hersh writes, a military action against al-Qaida, known as Operation Anaconda, was botched in Afghanistan's mountainous border with Pakistan. Billed at the time as a success story by the Pentagon, it was in fact a debacle, plagued by squabbling between the services, bad military planning and avoidable deaths of American soldiers, as well as the escape of key al-Qaida leaders, likely including Osama bin Laden.

And then there's this, which really just blows me away (and don't think I haven't heard it before):

Wouldn't it be great if the reality was that they were lying about WMD, and they really didn't believe that democracy would come when they invaded Iraq, and you could go to war with 5,000 troops, a few special forces, a few bombs and a lot of American flags, and Iraq would fold, Saddam would be driven out, a new Baath Party would emerge that's moderate? Democracy would flow like water out of a fountain. These guys believe it. They believe WMD. There's no fallback with these guys. These guys are utopians. They're like Trotskyites. They believe in permanent revolution. They really believe. They believe that they could go in with few forces. They believed that once they went in it would happen quick. Iran would get the message. What they call occupied Lebanon would get the lesson. Even the Saudis would change.

We live in dangerous times.