FLAIT

Why do staunch Republicans deliberately insult their own intellect by using moronic spin and talking points? Do they want to look foolish and ignorant? Or are they really that stupid and believe the spin and talking points the White House and Republican Party is feeding them?

Either way, it gives us great insight to their level of intellect (or lack thereof).

For instance, they incredibly try and spin/minimize the American casualties in Iraq by comparing them to WWII casualty rates; or to the crime rates in Detroit or Washington DC (I wonder if they'd be this stupid if it was Clinton that deliberately mislead the country into this colossal disaster).

I could see moronic spin like that coming from the White House and the GOP for three reasons:

• Spin, manipulation and divisive politics are their only priorities because God forbid the "party of responsibility" take responsibility...just once.

• It adds fuel to the nasty partisan fire perpetually raging between both party's (which is exactly what the GOP wants).

• To hand their mindless and gullible base talking points so they can shout them at "liberals" - as if this colossal disaster was our fault - and add even more fuel to the nasty partisan fire.

But you'd think the Republican base would consider what they're being fed (and why) to see if it can at least pass the "logic" test because who wants to look stupid?

Well, the Republican base certainly does because, as I've shown, they've never turned down a single talking point, no matter how much it stood logic on its head.

And more have been pouring out in recent weeks.

In their efforts to make the country forget the sole reason why we went to war - WMDs and the "imminent threat" they posed - the White House has jumped from one reason to another to justify the invasion. When the WMDs failed to turn up, it went from "regime change" to "9/11" to "the mass graves" and then "to bring democracy to Iraq" (those "reasons" are proven bogus, here).

But they've gotten a little stale. And with Bush's poll numbers dropping and the White House realizing we were getting close to the 2,500 American solider to be killed in Iraq and the media coverage that would come with it, Karl Rove needed to come up with a new reason why we went to war, show that "progress" was indeed being made, and boost Bush's poll numbers. And he got it with the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (which was followed up with an "Iraq meeting" at Camp David and Bush's "surprise" visit to Baghdad).

While Bush brushed off whatever effects Zarqawi's death would have, Rove, the GOP and their friends in the so called "liberal" media spun it the other way.

Rove made sure it would dominate the news so Zarqawi would be built into something he wasn't. Sure, he was al-Quaeda's Rambo, responsible for spectacular terrorist attacks and ruthless executions. But in reality, they were just a handful of the 50-100 attacks taking place every single day in Iraq.

"Getting Zarqawi" was certainly news, but the "liberal" media fed the GOP propaganda machine by speculating that his death would dramatically cut the violence when even a complete moron like Bush knew it wouldn't.

The real story - which went ignored by the "liberal" media - was that there shouldn't have even been a Zarqawi to deal with since Bush had the opportunity to take him out four years ago but failed to do so.

In 2002 the military tracked Zarquawi to a "weapons lab" he set up in northern Iraq and came up with plans three times to attack the lab and kill him. But Bush wouldn't give them the green light to pull the trigger because he was preoccupied with invading Iraq.

By keeping Zarqawi alive, it allowed the White House to make him out to be the wars biggest monster...in the event they ever needed one. So when he was finally killed in the middle of this quagmire, with Bush hovering around 35% approval, it was "great news" and spun into (yet another) "turning point." How convenient.

So Bush is getting the credit and a pop in his poll numbers for killing Zarqawi four years too late even though he had absolutely nothing to do with it; but none of the blame for failing to take him out when he had the chance before the war, a war Bush was counting on (where's the "liberal" media on this?).

I guess when you have one "good day" in Iraq, the GOP and their sycophant base will spin it for what it's worth to try and make everyone forget the 1,000 disastrous days that preceded it (hey, even the 1962 Mets won a game every once in awhile; it didn't mean they were "making progress").

But not only did Rove and the Republicans try to boost Bush's poll numbers with the Zarqawi kill, they're using him to justify the war since he was, technically, in Iraq in 2002 and could have made his way to Baghdad and planned a terrorist attack with Saddam Hussein.

Using Republican logic, it's sort of an "Ah ha! This is why we went to war! Take that, liberals...na-na-na-na-na-na!"

Once again, let me apply normal logic and common sense to Republican spin to prove them wrong and make them look foolish:

First, while Bush was beating the drums for war in 2002, he never used Zarqawi as "the reason" for the invasion. Again, let's not forget what the sole reason was: Saddam Hussein's WMDs, not Zarqawi's, and the "imminent threat" they posed. At least that's what Bush said, and since he never lies, never spins and never manipulates...

Second, there was no connection between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein; not only because Hussein and al-Quaeda had no use for each other, but because of the no-fly zones. Hussain was trapped (and for all intents and purposes, blinded) and couldn't set foot in the northern or southern part of the country - which was why Zarqawi was able to get into the north and operate at will.

Third, since when did America go to war on "ifs?" If Zarqawi made it to Baghdad...if he and Saddam Hussein conspired to attack the United States...

But let me see if I have this straight: we started a war in which we've suffered over 2,500 American deaths (so far), over 18,000 wounded (so far), tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of innocent Iraqi casualties (so far), and spent over $300 billion (so far) - not to mention the rest of the costs of the war - so we can kill Zarqawi, when a couple of secret air strikes and cruise missiles could have taken him out along with the weapons lab in 2002 without a war at all. Yup, sounds like Republican logic to me!

Another new GOP talking point currently making the rounds that desperately tries to justify the war, is "so we can fight the terrorists over there, instead of here."

Oh, is that why we invaded? Silly me, I thought it was about Hussein's "thousands of tons" of WMDs and the "imminent threat" they posed. Or was it "regime change," "9/11," "the mass graves" or "to bring democracy to Iraq?" Or was it to get Zarqawi? With the reason for the war always changing, I can never remember which one the White House finally settled on. Oh well.

But let me see if I have this latest reason straight: In 2002 Bush pulled troops and resources out of the "fight" in Afghanistan where "the terrorists" were, and sent them to "fight over there" in Iraq were they weren't, and in the process took a stable secular society that women were part of, and turned it into a violent, destabilized Islamic Theocracy that women are not part of, just to pick a fight with "the terrorists over there" - a "fight" that has created the terrorists we're "fighting over there" since they wouldn't have become terrorists had we not started the "fight over there"...and to avoid "fighting them here," we start an unnecessary war with no end, at a cost of 20,000 American casualties (so far), that will create more terrorists in the future that we'll have to "fight over there" for decades to come - terrorists that wouldn't have been created in the first place had we not left the "fight" in Afghanistan where the terrorists were, and still are, to start a "fight over there" where they weren't, but are now. Yup, that sure sounds like more Republican logic to me!

In an obvious sign of election year desperation, Republicans are digging deeper into their propaganda playbook for "oldie but goodie" talking points that give them the opportunity to - what else? - slam "liberals": "America doesn't 'cut and run'" and "we're going to stay until the job is done."

How dare Republicans disparage anyone for wanting to "cut and run!"

Since when has there ever been dishonor in retreating? Heck, retreating, "redeployment," or "cutting and running" is pro-life!

I guess it's easy for pompous Republicans - most of whom never served in the military - to be so god damn hawkish when it's someone else's son or daughter that will be risking their lives and limbs every single day. And when our soldiers make the ultimate sacrifice while standing in defiance of "cutting and running," Republicans will shrug off the death as if it took place during a Detroit drug deal gone bad. Disgraceful.

But if Republicans are going to be that callous, that impudent and that indifferent to the pernicious violence our troops are facing, then they should have no problem backing up their words by walking down the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah, Najaf, Kirkuk, Tikrit, Al-Anbar and Ramadi themselves, and throwing out their chests, pumping their fists in the air and shouting: "We're not cutting and running!"

What chickenhawk hypocrites.

Speaking of which, why was it alright for President Reagan to "cut and run" from Lebanon in 1984 (where are the Democrats on all this?)?

Be that as it may, that self-serving, obstinate and bellicose talking point is eerily similar to another self-serving, obstinate and bellicose talking point: "Where the German soldier sets foot, he remains." - Adolf Hitler, during WWII, from the book "Hitler's War" by Edwin P. Hoyt. Nuff said. (For a lot more eerie similarities between the Nazi's and GOP, see this.)

As for "staying until the job is done," when will that be exactly? When there hasn't been any kidnappings, car bombings, suicide bombings and IED explosions for three months...six months...two years? When heads, headless and tortured bodies stop turning up? When our troops (and haughty Republicans) can walk down the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah, Najaf, Kirkuk, Tikrit, Al-Anbar and Ramadi without fear and body armor?

When a legitimate Iraqi government takes control, that respects and enforces the rule of law and minority rights?
Please.

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to this war. We're in such a pickle that we can't leave and we can't stay. But the Republican Party and their mindless and gullible base - most of whom never served either - have some nerve spewing immature and pugnacious conservative "talk radio" rhetoric, ridicule and talking points, just to spin away blame for this colossal disaster their arrogant, incompetent and mentally ill President got us into.

If conservatives believe in Bush and the war so much, why aren't they backing up their tough talk by running down to the nearest recruitment office?

I guess when their only priority is to spin this colossal disaster, it's easier - and a hell of a lot safer - to scream moronic talking points at "liberals," especially when they don't care how foolish and ignorant it makes them look.

Sure, that's sick...and childish. But not only does it prove that the Republican base can not think for themselves (heck, they can't think, period!), it proves that the Republican Party has become a cult.