OK, so Dubya & Co. knew beforehand that their claim about Iraq’s buying uranium from Niger was bogus.

It’s part of a larger pattern of deception the administration engaged in in the leadup to the war. Does it matter?

Objectively, of course it does. But does it matter to the voters? Will this become WeaponsGate, or will it just slide off Dubya’s back like so many other things have?

I think it depends on how things go in Iraq. If, by this time next year, we’re still losing a soldier a day to Iraqi insurgents, Hussein’s still at large, no WMD have been found, and we’re not really any closer to some kind of peaceful democratic Iraqi state, then how we got into the war will become a matter of greater concern to the public.

From the beginning with Iraq, there was a debate about the war’s necessity. Dubya & Co. knew that Americans traditionally are very reticent to fight unnecessary wars. So they lied — about the Al Qaeda connection, about nukes, about WMD, about pretty much everything — to convince the booboisie the war was crucial to U.S. security.

The elites knew better. They knew it was an entirely optional war. Wouldn’t it be nice to get rid of Hussein once and for all? Sure, why not. Let’s do it. What the heck?

Those against the war stood strong on the ground that every war is a gamble with fate and shouldn’t be fought unless absolutely necessary to avert greater tragedy. And on the basis of the evidence, such as it was, Iraq certainly didn’t meet that test.

Now it appears that the United States is, if not losing the gamble on Iraq, definitely stretching the odds. Our horse is struggling to place. Where that horse is down the stretch next year will determine to a great extent what role Iraq plays in the 2004 presidential election.

Who the Democrats nominate for president is also crucial. Though I sense that Kerry is calculating enough to turn against Dubya on Iraq if and when necessary for political advantage, it may take someone with Dean’s tenacity to really keep the issue in the forefront of the news and to really hammer home on Iraq if the bad news keeps rolling in.

The problem is Dean is already being brushed off by the news media as a hot head. So, if the one presidential candidate who’s been hardest on Dubya on Iraq and has momentum (unlike Graham and Kucinich) is already being tagged as a fringe character, what chance does the anti-war crowd really have to make some progress on the war front — to get out of Iraq and to bring the troops home?

The fourth estate won’t do it on its own — it just can’t keep up the pressure for that long. And with Republicans controlling Congress, any Congressional investigations will be scuttled at the president’s pleasure.

For all these reasons, I’m pessimistic that all the news of Dubya’s deception on Iraq will gain any traction, unless Iraq gets really bad and the Democratic candidate has not only the cojones to take on Dubya on foreign policy but also some measure of sympathy from the news media reporting on the race.

(Also posted to Stand Down: No War Blog.)