American political leaders, Republicans as well as Democrats, did not ask hard questions before voting for war in 2002, they have not asked hard questions about the President's goals in the five years since, and they are not asking hard questions now about the true nature and prospects of the bold imperial adventure which the White House PR machine insists on calling a "war on terror." I have thought from the first day of war that it would destroy two presidents--suck up all their energy and attention, while every other matter of importance was allowed to drift. Two presidents, I thought, because the second in the early flush of triumph at winning the White House would look for a new strategy to put off or disguise the reality of failure, much as Nixon did in 1969. Of course the new strategy would fail, and the new president would find him- or herself insisting that the new strategy needed more time, or that someone else--Iran perhaps--was to blame. The lesson of Vietnam is that it doesn't take long to get stuck. Not knowing why we went in allowed us to go in; not knowing why we should get out will make it impossible to get out. None of the presidential candidates seems to know why we are failing, or to understand what is imperial about the way we deal with Iraq, or to sense that a bigger war is just another mistake away. I don't know what we can do about this. [Emphasis added.]

I do NOT know what the perfect soundbites are - drippy lib highly paid know it alls sneered at 'get the government off the backs of the people' and 'compassionate conservative', and grover and scalia and roberts thank all of you.

however, just like the deficit mushrooms so rich people can get richer importing slave labor toys, just like any of us with health insurance are slaves to our crappy jobs cuz of health insurance slavery, just like letting exxon and halliburton steal everything that is nailed down or not nailed down ...

just like ALL these fascist policies and actions 'hiding' behind lies,

our pathetic Dems can't do message, strategy, tactics

but

they can whine about how we should support them cuz 'look how bad the fascists are!'

ugh.

It's a horrible mistake for Dems to think that inaction -- at the cost of reputation and credibility -- is the way to go here.

If that's what they're ultimately good for -- absolutely NUTHIN (say it again y'all) [/Edwin Starr] -- I'd rather see the Palace not go to a Dem in '08 but help elect a strong, progressive congress. It's the most efficient way to reverse the horrendous damage done in the Bush era as well as unseat the perpetual losing Dem leadership from power once and for all. (With Dems like these, who needs enemies?)

If you say you want out of Iraq tomorrow morning and don't care what happens to the Iraqi's once we leave, or the U.S. troops for that matter, then you will be saddled with one set of consequences.

If you say that funds will only be allocated to get a safe retreat from Iraq (whatever that really means) then you will get a different response.

If you say that we don't need the funds in Iraq anymore because we achieved our goal of getting rid of Saddam then you will get a different set of poll results.

So, BTD has been right, the Dems aren't properly framing the debate and this has them scared to be tarnished with the "weak on national security" issue that plagued them during the Cold War.