Bring 'em on!

Hey, remember when the capture of Saddam was supposed to signify the end of the resistance in Iraq? Well, neither does the U.S. military, apparently. At least they're being candid, although precious little of said candor ever trickles into the consciousness of the American public, the majority of whom still believe that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind of 9/11. Yesterday my wife and I were watching the local news (it was a Fox affiliate, natch) as it covered a unit of the National Guard that had been called up to be deployed overseas. There was a little ceremony that the Guardsmen and their families attended during which each soldier was presented with a "9/11" artifact that they were supposed to cherish during their rotation as a reminder of why they had been sent. To Iraq. Which had nothing to do with 9/11. Jesus Christ, I wanted to throw something at the television.

This conflation of the War on Terror with Any War We Feel Like Fighting has worked so marvellously for the Bush junta that I fear, as George Soros does, that it will become standard operating procedure for the United States for the forseeable future, until we can muster the strength and courage to throw these unelected bums out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Kudos to Howard Dean for hammering away at the "War on Terror" shell game that Dubya have been playing with the American people. The worst possible thing that a Democratic candidate can be doing right now is enabling the current administration's behavior, but that's exactly what Joe Lieberman and John Kerry have been doing. Regardless of the fact that both Senators had voted for the resolution of force against Iraq last October, the truth is now clear that this war was launched on false pretenses (remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Well, neither does President Bush, apparently), and it is absolutely shameful that the majority of our Democratic hopefuls right now aren't screaming bloody murder about such a heinous abuse of faith and trust.

"But we have to support the troops!" That's the lame justification we hear from the President's Democratic enablers. "We have to stay the course!"

Newsflash, folks - Bush has no intention whatsoever of staying the course in Iraq. As we speak his administration is frantically putting together a slapdash "transfer of sovereignty" that will coincide perfectly with the final leg of the 2004 Presidential campaign. By surrendering the issue of the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, the enablers are going to hand Bush the significant PR victory of "bringing the boys (and girls) back home" over the upcoming summer. This is what Kerry and Lieberman just don't get. If we get out there and start making noise about getting out of Iraq as soon as possible, exactly the sort of thing that Dean is getting hammered by his fellow Dems and the mainstream press for saying, then the prize will be ours, not Bush's, when we are inevitably forced to bring the troops home again. This is an unbelievable no-brainer.

And as for "supporting the troops" - what better way to show your support now than to demand their immediate return, before any more die in a senseless occupation? The Dems have no idea of how much good will they could engender right now with the armed forces (who have traditionally voted Republican, but are showing some signs of dissatisfaction after having their home leaves postponed, their tours of duty extended, and their benefits out and out cut) by giving voice to their fears and frustration and pledging that the Democratic Party would not offer up a candidate for President who would toss the lives of American men and women away so carelessly on imperialistic ventures that primarily benefit a small cabal of corporate interests. It's not impossible to turn this issue around and put the GOP on defense. Dean is trying to do it, but the DNC and the punditry are still so frightened of the Executive Branch that they are actually tearing him down simply for making the attempt.

The DNC rank and file has made a cliche out of sneering at Ralph Nader's infamous dictum that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the Republicans and the Democrats, in light of all that has transpired since the fall of 2000. And yet those same Dems, by enabling the current occupants of the White House, still have yet to show that they're in a position to offer something better, or even just something different. Say what you will about Howard Dean, but at least he's acting as if there are differences between the Red and the Blue - important differences that will determine the course of our history in this third millennium. Would that the other high-profile candidates had the courage to do the same.