While its easy for us Democrats to villianize the us Republican Congress and Senate for not supporting a different course of action in Iraq, the DNC and GOP were unified in the support of the Iraq War. Democrats also need to ensure they never roll over and play dead again. A role as opposing party should be to contest a reuqest that had many obvious holes in adding up that was being driven by emotion and not common sense. This enablled GWB 's plan that's seen America invade and destory the semi functional infastructure, killing 200,000* hey they aren't Americans, so does it really matter?)Iraqi Civilians in the proccess just to topple a regime that posed no threat to America. Saddam was guilty of human rights violations such as ending the uprising by ethnic groups in ruthless manner. It should be noted Iraq has only known semi stability in its recent history during Saddam's regime. As we are seeing now, the sunni, shittes, and kurds have close to a thousand years of violence battling over the two train of thoughts of a militant violent intolerant teaching compared to a moderate more accepting version. Maybe the iron fist was needed to control these brainwashed fools that are breed to hate and only through violence was stability acheived. GWB should have studied history while at Yale. He should have known Americans would be targets caught in the middle of a power struggle that not even Haliburton's billing department might have even saw what layed awaiting to erupt.

Haliburton's nation building project GWM put together at the last minute to rebuild the damanged infastructure after shortly before he stated America is not in the business of nation building has rapidly devolved from anything but a functioning nation state as its now a Pre civil War quagmire nation policing operation. This will likely be the defining agenda of the 2008 elections. An initiative both party's overwhelmingly supported as Americans were fresh of dealing with the emotions of 9/11 as both parties warned America was in grave danger home and abroad. The message resonated with almost all Americans.
However, bipartisan agreement lasted a year as events materialized it was obvious GWB's forecast Iraqi oil would pay for financing of the war was as likely as Haliburton not winning the no bid contracts. Also, GWB's mission accomplished maverick attitude ( not bad for a former Yale cheerleader) of proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" was hardly accurate as the American montly death toll escalated to the highest numbers of the conflict which included the time when Iraqi resistance was organized, yet W's administration steam rolled anyone who criticized the reasoning and lack of planning post invasion Iraq. This is when Reasoning for the war with the new revelations that Iraq didn't possess a WMD/ nuclear program or even more startling didn't have the capability since the mid 90's to manufacture such weapons. The Niger/Uranium threat that was GWB's 100 mph fastball that all but drowned out any pre war ciriticism was first leaked as being a fabrication. Also, Iraq's terror ties to AQ the administration spoon fed Americans( ask Colin Powell)with now was considered by most Democrats as embellished or flat out wrong. By late 2003 Democrats were skeptical. By 2004, Democrats were has run their 2004 platform as anti -Iraq. It was done passively as the Democrats were forced to walk a fine line of not being too critical of the war at a time when when it needed to propose solutions for avoiding what looked like an inevitable one way ticket to creating a democratic Iraqi Government where leadership is prohibited from traveling in most of Iraq for fear of ambushes even while under the protection of American troops With 9/11 and the Iraq War just a year and half old it was painful to watch Democrats not defend themselves against GWB's propaganda machine that played on the fears of unassuming Americans.

The only difference between Democrats and the GOP is the right stubbornly and foolishly has remained "stay the course" when democrats gradualy unified . When GWB asked for a blank check The GOP and Democratic congress were unified and charitable because of the scare tactics ploy of giving igiving the admistration an unprecedented power giving the white house a blank check without the ordinary checks and balances required for a major conflict that will be possibly cost the American public 1 trillion dollars by 2009/2010 which is likely if "stay the course" is a go. As all has come full circle, this was a great victory for GWB's manipulative administration and bad for America ( including republicans). In 2007 and 2008 he is still getting mileage from using emotions of 2003 pre war America that was vulnerable for rallying behind GWB shoot first ask questions later out of left field reckless target of a topple regime that's never threatened the stability of America.
Which begs to answer.. What should be the GOP's/presidential candidate's view on Iraq? It would have to be a view that independents are comfortable with that mirrors nothing like GWB's Iraq nation building vision.

As much as conservatives dismiss Democratic Candidates as weak, deep down most know the Republicans candidates fighting an uphill battle in 08 that will be more difficult to overcome than the Democrats challenge of criticizing and supporting the war.

With that being said, I'm interested what course of action Republican candidates will adopt in an attempt to distinguish their campaign from others without alienating the base while appealing to independents. Independents who were the sole reason the Democrats won in a landslide victory in a referendum to take a stance against GWB/Iraq/Republican scandals more than Independents voted to endorse the DNC agenda.

Events in Iraq haven't improved since Democrats sucker punched the Republicans at their game using a script from Karl ROve's gameplan of strategically placing formidable candidates in districts and states where the support for the war was waivering by running modersate democrats.

Conditions in Iraq have worsened since the Nov. elections. An argument could be made the Democrats have done their duty in attempting to end/resolve the conflict in Iraq. GWB still is surrounded by scandals. They only reason one scandal goes away is because a new one erupts. The scandals of other Republicans seems to have subsided. However, its possible Independents will vote overwhelmingly Democrat next year if America continues to be engaged in the quagmire in Iraq. All GOP candidates need a complete reverse of fortune in a short 16 months that would downgrade Iraq from a MAJOR to Minor liability. That prognosis/dream is slim to none considering the the dysfunctional ( <-----It's Friday, so I'm being kind) climate of all things associated with America's nation building project over the last four years in Iraq. At the very least, our presence is simply holding the fort until an inevitable civil war erupts. The only question is when. When is dependant on the military withdraw from Iraq.

GWB's arrogance is the stumbling block for a GOP candidates who feel obligated to follow the stay the course. Republicans need to ask what is important to their party. Is supporting a lame duck sinking ship president who's who's legacy will be judged on the success of a new fragile Iraqi Government development. remaining egg baskert.

GOP'ers would be better served to distance themselves from GWB if Iraq continues to go South by endorsing a timetable most Democrats are now championing as their strategy. A timetable that will hold the Iraqi Government/people accountable for their future. IMO, Its the only avenue Republicans have at avooiding the DNC's popular ( especially with Independants) agenda that will counter the "stay the course" policy. If the GOP doesn't, Iraq will continue remain and most likely evolve into a more of a monumental asset for Democrats than it was in 2006.

A GOP agenda that differs from GWB would have the most to gain politically. A Republican initiative( or even decent size faction of the GOP) that would be an about face and would illustrate the GOP is ready for new leadership that might be the last bit of pressure to force GWB to pull the plug. This would not only assist in repairing the GOP's image, but it could be a defining moment in delivering what Americans are starving for- America first before party affiliation loyaty secondary on an issue where almost on both sides was in support based on selective information that was laced with much speculated or erroneous opinions. THis would allow GOP candidates the platform to champion issues that appeal to typically appeal to independents instead of deflecting the Democrats barrage of associating all Republican canidates as a GWB disciple staying the course continuing the policy of quagmire. Above all, our troops, America's critical reputation abroad, the war on terror, and financial deficit, and possibly the most important a renewed faith in the politics that admiting error and attempting to correct it later is far more noble than demonstrating support where ample time has been given to attempt to pressure a change of course.

The Democrats have the advantage as they only have to smile and play amajor mistake free game and the party will be rewarded a beneficiary of the GWBs failed nation building that will enable the southpaws to coast to victories in congress, senate, and presidential elections if the GOP don't formulate an end to Iraq like Democrats.

First, keep in mind that most Democrats strongly agreed with the war in Afghanistan, which had it been successfully prosecuted could have netted us not only Khalid Sheikh Mohammed but also Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, and a good portion of the other leaders of Al Qaeda AND the Taliban. Both are unfortunately still around today, because instead of authorizing adequate troops and routing bin Laden, Bush and Co. were fixated on Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks, had no WMDs, and was a threat to no one except its own people. As we now see, Iran and Iraq basically kept each other in check, and now that the latter has been completely destroyed, Iran is running amok and fears no one. Does anyone not think that as bad as things are for our US servicemembers over in Iraq right now things would be 100 times worse if the US or Israel attacked Iran? This is a nightmare scenario that unfortunately a number of the Republican presidential candidates articulated last night.

The most rational comments I heard last night from any of the Republicans came from Ron Paul, who said, We need to get out of there. And the US should. But the problem is we can't, or the GOP won't, not because they fear a worsening civil war; they don't give a damn about the mass killings and the carnage. Do you ever hear Bush sound even a tiny bit sincere about the horrors he and his neocon warmongering administration have helped to unleash? NO. Did Rumsfeld EVER sound contrite? No. Cheney? No. Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc. No. They DON'T CARE ABOUT THE IRAQI PEOPLE OR THE US TROOPS. They won't even fund and arm the troops properly! They just see them as props and tools. What they care about has been plain since the day when they guarded the Oil Ministry as the rest of Baghdad was looted blind. They are determined to ensure access for multinational oil companies to Iraq's vast oil reserves, no matter what, and they also do not want Al Qaeda--which was NOT in Iraq before this war--to be able to claim even a quasi-victory after a US pullout. So it's greed and vanity that're keeping our soldiers over there.

Think about it: if Bush had really wanted to win the war, he would said immediately after being reelected in 2004, we are going to increase the troops to 200,000 or 250,000, hunt down the insurgents, seal the border, and do everything that Petraeus is struggling to do in 2007. Were there not enough troops, he could have used his "capital" to reinstitute a draft. Given his victory, he could have bullied the Democrats into going along with this. Yes, it would have put the Republicans at a temporary disadvantage electorally, but in the long run, if Bush had cleaned up Iraq by now--if he had shown any real seriousness and the bombings and killings had dropped, if the government there was really functional, if the military could have sealed the borders, etc.--the Republicans would have had a blow-out in 2006, and really would have sealed their electoral predominance for years to come. Because they could have said, okay, maybe the war *was* unnecessary, maybe the administration lied about it, maybe we screwed up at first, but see, we did get serious after 2004, and now look, Iraq is transformed for the better, and we have Iran in check as well. And he could have made the draft "temporary" and contingent upon achieving some benchmarks. Even the keyboard warriors would have signed up, don't you think (or paid illegal immigrants to do so)?

But you know, the administration and its neconmen are so arrogant and incompetent, they didn't really care about any of this. It was all sleazy politics, games, whatever they thought they could get away with. That's why any Republican who tacks too close to these jokers is basically necklacing himself, as in a burning tire around the neck. Or a noose. All the corruption, all the lies, all the things we've been pointing out for years on this board are now bursting out like a diseased boil. The scandals just keep metastisizing, and since the GOP no longer controls Congress, they can't hide how extensive the duplicity and incompetence have been. Yes, the GoP and its allies, like Joe Lieberbush, keep lying and trying to change the subject. And it isn't working.

Ask yourself, why is Bush's approval rating stuck in the mid 30s for more than year? Why don't their orchestrated campaigns against Pelosi and Reid stick? Because the majority of American people have woken up to the fact that these people are just rotten to the core--and I mean in a personal sense in addition to their politics. That doesn't mean that a Republican can't win in 2008, but it also means that the Democrats have an advantage in that they recognize--hell, they were elected in November 2006 to do so--where the American people are, and how disgusted a majority of us are at what has gone on. I wasn't snowed by Bush, but Lord knows, millions were. Thank the Lord the majority of them have woken up. They just need to remember that what we experienced is what occurs when Republicans take over. They don't know how to govern, and shouldn't ever be trusted again to run the Executive and Congressional branches at the same time, that is, unless they return to being the party of Eisenhower as opposed to the party of Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Robertson/Falwell/CFA/Tony Perkins, etc.

Would GWB's biggest failure be the Iraq debacle or not capturing Bin Laden?

Its amazing we didn't exhaust the same amount of energy into capture of the world's most elusive fugative yet have and will contiunue to sacrifice many American casualties, 600 plus billions of dollars in resources that we will never see again and that's probable waisted on on failed mission as we pay for a war we don't support why W spends spends spends. Maybe the GOP will get the message and at least attmept to influence W into pulling the plug at the last minute so the was won't be as challenging issue for GOp candidates.

The events of Iraq are astonighing if someone were to do a detailed timeline of the statesments pre War compared to the reality of today and being able to document the 3-4 dozen huge mishaps. Yet W is engergized to stay the course in Iraq.

Yet, when is the last time the White House assured America it was doing everything it could to capture Bin Laden so it could prevent another 9/11 attack? When did t America's #1 enemy who was the puppet master pulling the strings won't strike again? Of course he's taken credit for an attack against the Vice President Cheney during an unannounced visit to Aghganistanrecently. Anyone concerned Al Queada knew the exact time and location of Cheney during an unannounced visit?

become a casual national interest?

Didn't GWB mumble during the 04 debate Bin Laden not a threat to US intrerests he's not interested in smoking them out of caves as he preached after 9/11. Nope not on W's radar screen and certtainly hasn't made an effort of searching for the world's most famous fugative who butchered the 3,000 civilians, structural damange to our nation' military brain- Pentegon, and another attack was halted thanks to the brave men and women twho died defending America they believe in and would hope our commander in chief would ahve the balls to bring Bin Laden to Justice to honor their courage. Nope it's not W's style. Why start makign sense now? Forget the sever blow to the economy, and a damaging downward spiral where it's taken almost 7 years that would rival any roller coaster yet there hasn't been a focuse on capturing the the original culprit who's astonishing still free as wer've done everything from cleaning every Iraqi kitchen except never announcing, alluding, or even a capability that acknowledges he's still a major threat to America, yet not one of W's major objectives of the last 3 years hass made threats at almost every middle eastern county, yet W seems to have almost discounted post 2001 Bing Laden as an urban legend that's rumored to be habtitating in the remote caves along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border most likely believing his role has become more of a puppet figure who's constantly having to hide as other Al Aqueda operatives have moved up in ranks and are calling the shot. it would be foolish to discount Bin laden. None of us every believed a 9/11 was remotely possible. W's still not learned the lesson. He's discoutned the Iraqi insurgency and the discipline of Bin Laden will power to hide for 7 years in horrible conditions just to have an opporuntiy for round 3.

Maybe a Democrat Candidate has to see the value in restoring American pride and keeping an eye on the ball so we can celebrate a Misson Accomplished correctly instead of arrogantly. Bin Laden's capture is needed for closure as many would take a somewhat ok ending to an exhausting chain of events. Lets pray W doesn't have another impulsive nation building idea.

I'm not so sure this election is a slam-dunk for the democrats. I saw an article a few days ago about how religious conservatives in the Republican party are worried because Tancredo is the only candidate in the field that represents them. What this means to me is that the media is going to brand the winner of the Republican nomination as a "moderate", whereas the Democratic candidate (especially if it's Hillary or Obama) will be a "liberal". The fact that they're not that liberal doesn't really matter. I fear it's going to be Bush, Sr. vs. Dukakis all over again. I think even Carter was positioned as a moderate or conservative democrat in '76. The Dems only real hope is for it to be a referendum on Iraq like the midterm election, but the leading candidates mostly supported the war. If the media positions this as a choice between a moderate Republican and a liberal Democrat, they're hosed.

Perhaps an indicator of the problems the Republicans have is the lack of availability of credible candidates in local races. It took a while for them to find anyone credible to run in the mayoral race here in Philadelphia and I can not even remember the guys name. Nor would I vote for him, though as an Independent I have my candidates selected for me by the two-party machine.

One democrat, Tom Knox, was apparently heavily recruited by the Republicans but decided to run as a Democrat realizing I suppose that in the current political environment even his millions could not buy a Republican victory. The last credible Republican candidate that I can remember was Sam Katz, who I actually voted for over the current mayor John Street the first time Street was elected. I voted for Street's second term.

They say all politics are local. That's where either party will win or lose eventually. If Republicans are losing locally there will be noone in the pipeline to credibly wage furture battles for their causes, nationally or internationally.