FLAIT

Where do I start?

Iraq's a colossal disaster, right? Always has been, right? There's no way anyone would still go to war knowing what we know now, right? It would be like betting against an instant replay, right? Well, the Democrats would.

During his Presidential campaign, John Kerry said that he'd still vote for the war despite knowing what we know now.

In January 2005, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said that he too would still vote for the war (he came out in support of the war while campaigning for his seat). And last October, Sen. Chuck Schumer, incredibly, justified the war by saying it was "about the war on terror."

This is the sort of moronic spin you'd expect from Bush, the Republicans and their brainwashed base. But the Democrats?

They were lied to for Christ's sake! Congress - "We the People" - were lied to! And the war's a colossal disaster! So Democrats should be furious about Iraq!

Well, why aren't they? Where is their anger? And why do they go out of their way to avoid the "L," "D" and "I" words - "lie" "disaster" and "impeachment?"

Because Democrats are freakin' wimps!

They're afraid to admit the truth because Republicans would unleash a torrent of abuse and accuse them of being "flip-floppers," who "hate America (October, 2008 insert: here), hate our troops" and are "soft on terrorism." And they can't handle it.

But the Democrats have the facts and logic on their side and could fight back (yea, even a Democrat). Unfortunately, they're too stupid to realize it.

What's scary is that Kerry had to know the question was going to be asked at some point during the campaign. But he was too much of a boob to come up the logical response:

"First, as we now know, there was no threat. In fact, Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican, said that the votes probably wouldn't have been there for the war had we known the information President Bush had given us on Iraq's WMDs was so flimsy and unreliable. So I...we...Congress...the People...were misled. So for all intents and purpose's, there shouldn't have been a war.

"Second, the war was so poorly planned - incredibly, there was no plan - and we'll be paying such a high price for it, in so many ways, for decades...and again, there was no threat. So knowing what we know now, and how things have turned out - no - there's no way that I'd vote for this senseless war. And anyone who says otherwise is just a partisan Republican who's too stubborn to admit he was wrong."

Is that so difficult?

Of course Democrats act like a deer in the headlights when it comes to the follow-up question: "So if you were in charge, Saddam Hussein would still be in power?"

Since he assumed that he had to appear "tough," Kerry foolishly inferred that had he been president in 2002, he might have gone after Hussein too (shades of Mike Dukakis in the tank).

Give me a break. This is Bush's war. No one else would have started it - not John Kerry, not Al Gore, and not John McCain.

So for Democrats to suggest that Iraq was the "next logical step" after 9/11 - and play into Bush's spin that there was a connection - is infuriating because there was none!

Kerry's logical response should have been: "Well, yes he would still be in power. But over 1,000 Americans (at that time) would not have gotten killed, over 9,000 (at that time) would not have gotten wounded, more than - who knows? - 50,000 innocent Iraq's (at that time) would not have gotten killed or wounded, we'd be saving hundreds of billions of dollars, our military wouldn't be as dangerously stretched as it is, Iraq would be stable, we wouldn't have to worry about a civil war, Saddam would still be in his box - right where we could keep an eye on him - we would have gotten a lot further on al-Quaeda because Bush pulled troops and resources out of Afghanistan in 2002 to go off on this wild goose chase in Iraq, we wouldn't be sending more terrorist recruits to al-Qaeda which the Iraq war is doing, and Iran and North Korea wouldn't be developing nuclear weapons to defend themselves against what they perceive as a madman in the White House."

Is that so difficult?

Does anyone think that if this colossal disaster was Bill Clinton's doing, the Republicans would be saying they'd still vote for the war? My God, the Republicans would not only have impeached Clinton by now - led by those who voted for the war - they would have prosecuted him criminally so they can throw him in jail!

At the very least, Democrats should taking what the Republicans said in 1998 about Clinton's air strikes on Kosovo, and throwing it right back in their hypocritical faces; along with Colin Powell's quotes from 2001.

But since Democrats can't argue themselves out of a paper bag, they don't even do that.

How pathetic. And it gets worse because Democrats are too stupid to come up with a logical response that would explain their vote for the war, such as:

"You mean I have to stand by that vote forever, no matter what? I'm not allowed to change my mind? And I have to insult the nation's intelligence by saying I'd still vote for this disaster?

"You have to remember, that everyday during the Clinton years, Rush Limbaugh said that 'words mean things.' So I naturally assumed that applied to Republican administrations as well; even more so since this was about war and matters of life and death.

"So when I was deciding whether or not to vote for the war resolution, it never occured to me that the President of the United States would give us information that wasn't just wrong, but couldn't have been more wrong. So my mistake was that I believed President Bush. And he is Commander in Chief. So this is his war; his responsibility."

Is that so difficult?

But let me see if I have this straight: the Democrats try and score political points - when there's none to score - when Bush dragged his feet on the tsunami after he was re-elected, and two years before the next big election. But when he lies, exaggerates and misleads the country into a totally unnecessary war that turns into a colossal disaster, not only don't we hear a peep out of the Democrats, they say they'd still vote for it because it was about "the war on terror."

God help us.

And that's just Iraq. Consider the rest of Bush's disastrous five years in office:

Despite all the indications and the infamous "August 6th PDB," Bush failed to demand "specifics" that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, he's alienated our allies and created more enemy's, he pandered to the oil, coal, gas, banking, health care and insurance industries, we have an exploding budget deficit, due mostly to his feckless tax cuts in a time of war, and the senior prescription drug plan - written by the pharmaceutical industry, for the pharmaceutical industry, and passed in the House by using extortion - is a confusing bureaucratic mess (and more cynical anti-government Republican voters are created in the process. How convenient.).

And then there's Terri Schiavo, John Bolton, the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, rising energy costs, Bush's incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina and ensuing indifference to the rebuilding of New Orleans, the Duke Cunningham, Bill First, Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff scandals, the torturing of prisoners, and Bush's "signature statement" which allows him to ignore the anti-torture law.

If that's not enough, by wiretapping American's without a warrant, he's also a criminal!

And where are most of the Democrats on all this? Running away like scared little bunnies.

But wait, there's more!

When the Republicans were threatening the "nuclear option" in the Senate, Democrats said they cut the deal they did so they can keep the filibuster and use it on a future Supreme Court nominee. And when John Roberts was nominated, the Democrats said they didn't want to spend whatever political capital they had on him. So when a Samuel Alito, a staunch conservative, is nominated to replace the key swing vote on the Court, the Democrats half-hearted attempt at a filibuster goes nowhere.

And we wonder why we get slaughtered election after election.

So the Democratic Party is lost, leaderless and afraid of their own shadow. However, there is one thing that can turn this hopeless party around: a combative leader with a brilliant liberal mind that will get angry and stand up to the Republicans...without spin. Not some crooked manipulative typical politician like Hillary Clinton.

I only see one man in the party who might fit that description: Al Gore. Unfortunately, he's not running.

Speaking of Hillary - she is the unofficial figurehead of the Democratic party. Well, where the hell has she been on Iraq, Terri Schiavo, John Bolton, warrantless wiretapping and everything else?

What's the problem? Those things don't "play well" in Iowa or New Hampshire? My God, if they don't "play well" then what the hell will?

I'd be embarrassed if I was a Hillary supporter. But being a Democrat is embarrassment enough.