Do security Democrats have to support the Iraq War?

It's a pickle, for sure.

The New Yorker interview with Joe Biden seems to think they do. But shouldn't we level with the American people about how Saddam had nothing to do with September 11, and about how the US presence in Iraq just makes things worse, without looking soft on terrorism?

Usama bin Ladin is our enemy. He got away. Democrats should chase him, nobody else. After all, how can the Republicans look tough on terror when they moved troops away from our enemy and attacked someone else?

From January 2004: U.S. military 'sure' of catching bin Laden this year

"The U.S. military is 'sure' it will catch Osama bin Laden this year, a spokesman said Thursday" but don't hold your breath. :-(

Here's another story about it.

The New York Sun is trying to say it is a "Lone Diplomat" but I don't buy it.

Bush Sr. lost his re-election because his war was over.

Bush Jr. cemented his re-election by making sure his war wasn't.

If Sherman hadn't captured Atlanta we would be reading about President McClellan in our history books. Why won't we read about Presiden Kerry?

Don't let Bush pass the buck to the CIA!

The Gorilla in the Room　has made an excellent point about the presidential commission to study intelligence failures: it "didn't look at the role of the Office of Special Plans or the Vice President's office" and that ain't telling the whole story.

Check it out! (before it sinks from sight).

As I was saying . . .

The Washington Times also thinks a civil war very possible, and Shi'ite theocracy the most likely alternative.

One correction to their story. I would have thought a FEDERAL, not unitary, Iraq was the US goal. Unfortunately, while Federalism is the obvious solution, it does not exist in the Arab world, and is beyond the political understanding of most Arabs. This is not to say they are stupid, just that federalism is no more part of their tradition than a unitary state is part of Americans' traditions. Most Americans don't know what a unitary state is, just as most Arabs don't know what federalism is.

Impolitically Correct

Paul Krugman has a nice article about what's going on right now in the United States.

"What we need - and we aren't seeing - is a firm stand by moderates against religious extremism. Some people ask, with justification, Where are the Democrats? But an even better question is, Where are the doctors fiercely defending their professional integrity?"

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for people of good will to do nothing.

That's what's happening. :-(

"Moveon.org" and the Iraq war

MoveOn.org: Making Peace With the War in Iraq correctly notes that MoveOn.org is downplaying the "out now" approach. But is that wrong?

Iraq was always a tar baby. Hit it and you're stuck. Even the UN won't toss us in the briar patch now.

Vietnam really had no dominoes. Iraq does. Which way are they going to tip? Probably to militant Islam. Shi'ites voted because their Ayatollah told them it was "wajib" (compulsory) to do so. Others voted to keep Shi'ites from taking over.

Right now the best the US can hope for is a Shi'ite theocracy. More likely is civil war.

Think about that. Bush turned our worst nightmare of a few years ago into the best we can hope for. If we are lucky, Iraq will become a militant Islamic theocracy allied to a nuclear armed Iran, where the hardliners will be strengthened.

Not turning Bush out in 2004 did enormous damage to the US, its national interest, and even its national security. Now there is nothing Americans can do about it. Even a Democrat president elected in 2008 will not be able to undo the damage being done now.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Ain't it the truth

It's Not Your Father's America Any More

Bush let bin Ladin get away

Chicago Sun-Times: "Pentagon: Bin Laden escaped us at Tora Bora"

CNN.com: "Document suggests bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora"

and we could still get him, if we didn't have all our troops tied down in Iraq :-(

Pakistan 'got close to' bin Laden

But Bush wanted Saddam instead!

Is it true most Bush voters thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11?

Finally! Wes Clark returns :-)

Wes Clark, the only Democrat contender other than Kerry and Edwards to win primaries, finally has his website up. It's got the same web savvy nature his campaign site did, and it's set up so all the old Clark Community can log on and continue the conversation we were having during the primaries.

We have to have leaders who can confront the enemy, not fools who ignore national security while they attack social security and regimes that don't threaten us.

No, they don't have any shame.

White House defends video news releases:

http://us.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/15/government.videos.ap/

Have they no shame?

"Tom has done so much fund raising," says Indiana Representative Mark Souder.

Yes, it's all about the money, not about how you get it.