Republican attempts to tie Dems to the Iraq War are, of course, the clearest possible indication that party doesn't think that it's going well. The positions of minority Senators like Clinton or Kerry or of members of the Democratic House minority couldn't be more irrelevant to the question of how we got into the war. But it is important politically. Your MOB pal Vince Weber obviously sees Iraq as an issue where blame must be assigned, rather than credit claimed.

Vin Webber. Vin. Not Vince. Kind of like your cousin Vinny. You know. The one that falls asleep in doorways. How many teeth does HE have left?

Obviously?, Ass Clown? Only in your needy little world where you feel you have to try and slam Mitch at every turn. I swear if Mitch said the sky was blue you'd argue about it because you're such an angry person that you need to think that you've pissed off some Republicans in order to brighten your day. But what you succeed at is being an excellent example of a Democrat. Anyway, no I think we can criticize and take credit at the same time. It's not like some clowns that can't walk and chew gum simultaneously. Have a nice day!!

Nice try, Pube, but no dice. You've been informed on a different thread that you're not sufficiently well-informed to carry on an argument with Angryclown. Nothing personal.

Plus you're getting just a little stalker-y.

Angryclown,

You are not getting the help you need by acting out here.

Someone's a little full of himself today, eh Clown? Perhaps I am worthy to debate you?
The Dem's are, I believe, in a no-win situation here (at least from a logical, if not political, standpoint). They can say "Bush lied and we were misled." Two problems: Clinton, Gore, et. al. believed Iraq had weapons as much as Bush did, and are on the record as saying so. Also, time will likely prove he didn't lie, and weapons were stashed in the 2+ year "rush to war."
Or, they can say, "Everyone believed he had weapons, but it turned out we were wrong, and if I had known then what I know now I wouldn't have supported the war." 20/20 hindsight is not a strategy.
Of course there is a third, completely novel strategy for an loyal opposition party: Support the war so as to actually WIN it, all the while fighting like hell domestically for other things they believe in.
It appears the Dem's are choosing door number 4: Incoherently criticize at every turn, focus on the negative, do exactly what our enemies would like us to do (paper tiger), and then blame others when it's unsuccessful. Probably good electioneering.
However, it will without question make the next battle in this war infinitely more costly in money and lives. I guess if that's what it takes to win Congressional seats, go for it!

Don't worry, Chriss, your post makes the cut. (Angryclown isn't full of himself so much as lacking the time to waste with people who don't know what they're talking about.)

You make some good points about the difficult political spot the Democrats find themselves in. The Democrats have bungled the politics of the war almost as thoroughly as the Republicans have botched the war. The idea that Congressional opposition costs lives, though, is nonsense. Even if it were true, your point seems to be that it's acceptable to defend Iraqi democracy with American lives, but not American democracy.

A lot of people think the war is wrong and stupid. That's a failure of leadership by your guy. All of a sudden, when things are going badly, you right-wingers are interested in bipartisanship. Too late - try again next war.

As I have said in other posts, some democrats may not have actually believed there were WMD's. It was important to show a unified front when dealing with Hussein. Most Democrats believed Bush when he said war was the last option and that diplomacy was being used to avoid war.

When Bush pulled the trigger and launched a full scale war, democrats were stuck either supporting the President or being trapped in the "I was for the war before I was against it" trap that devastated Kerry.

They also foolishly believed the rosey picture painted by the administration so even though we were stuck with a committment to war, at least it would be a short, inexpensive and successful operation.

At some point, I hope Democrats and the few Republicans with integrity will come forward and admit they were played.

I think A.C. just needs a hug. Come here you floppy nosedd red nosed lefty you!

PIMF, that should read "Floppy shoed, red nosed lefty"

A former Iraqi military commander appeared on Jon Stewart's Daily Show a few days a go. He has written a book called Saddam's Secrets which supposedly tells how and where Saddma "got rid of" the WMDs in the run-up to war. It's strange that this man has not been grilled relentlessly by the CIA nor has he been silenced so that those elusive weapons can be found and brought out in the open in order to continue justification for this war. But then, suspicion was enough, wasn't it? Why prove anything now that war has already been raging for 3 years?

Incidentally, the American death toll of the Iraq War is actually closer to 6,000, not 2,300. If a soldier dies after a set amount of time, the military doesn't count his or her death in the official toll.

Teena, by that reasoning, the death rate of ever war we have ever fought in prior to WW1 is 100%. Everysoldier who fought in those wars has died