FLAIT

The new GOP talking point making the rounds is that Democrats can't agree among themselves about our troops in Iraq. Some Democrats want to pull out now, some believe we should stay, while others think we should set timetable for a gradual withdrawal.

For some reason a difference of opinion within a party is seen as a negative by Republicans. But who said a party had to unite around a single point of view, especially on something as complicated as this war? Besides, I don't hear Republicans blasting their own party when some of their members are "pro-choice." Quite the contrary: they brag about how "big their tent is" (they sure have some chutzpah with that one, huh?).

Republicans are also making a big deal about the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton don't agree on what to do. Yea, so?

Put 10 Republicans into a room and they'll come out with one opinion. Put 10 Democrats into a room and they'll come out with a dozen opinions, proving it's the Democrats that have a mind of their own and can think for themselves.

But the fact that the Democrats hold different points of view and are so befuddled on Iraq proves it's such a colossal disaster that no one has the answers because there aren't any! So no wonder the Democrats don't agree. We're in such a pickle that we can't leave and we can't stay!

Of course, Bush will continue spinning this disaster because his only priority is to keep his brainwashed base riled up and shouting at liberals (as if this disaster was our fault). So he doesn't give a damn. But by failing to come up with a legitimate exit strategy themselves, it's the Democrats that are illustrating just how big a mess this war is.

For example, Iraq is like having a substitute teacher in school. Remember how the class took advantage? Well, we're the sub in Iraq and the insurgents are taking advantage. So if we pulled out, it would be like the sub walking out of the room, and Iraq would become anarchy on steroids. Here's why:

Despite Bush's spin about all this...ahem..."progress" we're making, there could be as many as 100 insurgent groups in Iraq - and they're not going away any time soon. In fact, they're going to win these elections Bush is bragging about (the Iranian - yes, the Iranian - backed Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his growing militia could wind up with a lot of power).

Throw in the daily violence, the civil war that's brewing between Sunni's and Shiites, the Kurds possibly moving on Kirkuk or declaring independence (which would trigger a war with Turkey, forcing a NATO response), al-Zarqawi running around like Rambo, Iran trying to influence events, and Iraq sitting on the third largest oil reserves in the world that everyone wants to get their hands on, and what you have is our troops stuck in the middle of an impossible situation with no solution.

Way to go, Mr. President!

If we pulled out, imagine if al-Quaeda got hold of the oil fields - you don't think that's on their minds? - and/or took control of a city or region either by force or by cutting a deal with the insurgents, militia groups, Sunni's, Shiites or Kurds (that would be like WWII in reverse: the war ending with the Nazis keeping Europe!).

Should that scenario play out or something similar, Iraq would become an "imminent threat" in 10 or 20 years and we'd have to invade all over again (assuming Israel didn't take care of it themselves before then). And the President wouldn't have to lie about it because the threats would be real.

So choosing between pulling out and "staying the course" isn't like choosing between bad and worse. It's like choosing between typhoid and the bird flu (in other words, sort of like choosing between Bush and Cheney!)!

But that's the price you pay when a brainless arrogant incompetent madman starts a senseless war without a plan, just to fulfill his legacy, because he assumed it would be "easy."

But wait, it gets worse!

Even if we decided to leave and Bush ordered our troops out tomorrow, it would take at least a year to bring everyone home. So we'd continue to take casualties for as long as our troops are there.

And then, how would the Iraqi's prevent a civil war from breaking out, stabilize the country (while they're doing their share to destabilize the country), and defend themselves all at the same time without us? They don't have an army or air force. So we'd have to leave our guns, tanks, helicopters and fighter jets in Iraq - you think they'd pay us for all that? - which the Shiites would promptly use on the Sunni's.

But that might prove to be academic because most if not all that firepower would just wind up in the hands of the insurgents, militia groups, al-Quaeda and maybe even Iran (how nice).

So if we leave, who's going to prevent the inevitable civil war from becoming a regional war that spills into Saudi Arabia, which is sitting on the largest oil reserves in the world, and whose regime Osama bin Laden has wanted to topple all along (that sound you hear is bin Laden laughing hysterically at his favorite person in the world: George Bush)?

Does anyone really think we're going to leave the responsibility of protecting our vital strategic interests to the Iraqi's...who can't even protect themselves and are, in fact, inciting the violence?

So we're stuck in Iraq until enough Iraqi's are trained so they can at least stabilize their own country. But there's a small problem with that: contrary to Bush's moronic spin, the Iraqi's will never be able to "stand up so we can stand down." It's not happening...ever. That's just Karl Rove propaganda to keep Bush's poll numbers from tanking into the 20s (insurgents are infiltrating Iraq's security forces and using that authority to arrest, torture and kill Sunni's. So forget about "training the Iraqi's"- it's nothing but White House spin!).

So if we have to keep our troops in Iraq until "victory is assured," we'll be taking casualties forever because what is "victory?" When our troops can drive their humvees without fear of running over an IED? When the suicide bombers are completely wiped out...forever? When there's a Starbucks and McDonalds in Baghdad? When a secular stable Iraqi government is securely in place and it respects the rule of law and protects minority rights?

Well, that's never happening.

So on one hand we can't leave, if for no other reason then to protect Saudi Arabia, the Royal Family and 70% of the worlds oil. But on the other hand, we obviously have to get out of there. Not only because of the senseless casualties we're taking, but because our military is already stretched dangerously thin and we don't have the troops to occupy Iraq indefinitely...at least not without a draft.

Hey, I said this was a colossal disaster with no answers. So, duh! Of course the Democrats don't agree among themselves! Another foolish GOP talking point is proven wrong again!

This is Bush's war; it's his disaster, his responsibility. And it should be taken as a slap in the face to every solider in Iraq for their Commander in Chief to be acting like a Commander of Spin instead. What a disgrace; what an embarrassment! In fact, Bush should be held to the same standard the GOP would Clinton if this was all his doing...ah misdoing: impeachment and imprisonment.

Hey Mr. President, spin that.