It takes two sides to fight the ruinous fight

The difference here is the war. Rough politics is essentially a harmless pastime when we are at peace. But Rove practiced divisive politics in the midst of a war. It was criminal stupidity.

Oh, yeah - it's all been just Rove playing divisive politics. The Democratic party hasn't engaged in that in the slightest. Their sense of responsibility in carefully critiquing the war and proposing alternatives that exist in the here and now rather than pandering to people opposed to not only this war but all war has been a credit to the nation. At no point did they inflame and cynically mislead the electorate out of a desire to seize back power in the House. If there's division in the country, it's all RoveBushHitlerMcHaliburney wot dunnit.

"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."

Let's be frank, MR, tell me what it is about the war that makes it so appalling? That Iraqis die, that Americans die, that we spend money stabilizing the regional consequence of removing Iran's worst enemy? Had Gore invaded, I would have supported him. The war in Iraq has become the "war? of a moral play and not about a fluid and complex dynamic with powerful currents of its own. Sure, FIASCO listed a slew of mistakes that followed liberation. The administration saw a window that Saddam was trying to get through, even before everyone realized the Iranians were far ahead in the threat game. They saw the political opportunity to pre-empt Saddam while he was rusty, to shut him down and roll back an expanding network of extremism. Maybe with Manning as QB. Such a strategic game plan had risks. The French and Russians were betting on their contracts and Bush wanted to change the map. In 2001, the US was looking at Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Libya all pushing WMD programs many Democrats denied existed. Those are irrigation tunnels, I tell you! Rove didn?t created the conditions, he took the opportunity to use them for political advantage making partisanship synonymous with some kind of patriotism. His moves were often so transparent they were comical, yet Democrats slowly took the bait.Lil' BUsh confirms this. Rove isn't any funnier as a cartoon.

So let's do some realistic projections about a Gore Presidency. I hope my scenario isn?t too far-fetched. Imagine Afghanistan still the mess it is today with the US leading an underwhelming force. Meanwhile, imagine Russia and France were successful in lifting sanctions as Iran and Saddam blister with threats of WMD against each other and towards Israel. As arms pour into the region, Putin would explain to Gore that the Gore arms protocol under Clinton approved their weapons sales to Iran and others including nuclear technology. And our friends in the UAE would find protection where? Who cares? Ask the French and Russians playing spoilers, or China as they slip in. Oh those Saudis and Kuwaitis get what they deserve. Israel will again be forced to strike against facilities like Superman. Imagine the world?.the Russians are in the Mediterranean, Lebanon is under Syrian grip with French and Russians actually supplying all sides. And what would India think then, or Pakistan as US forces in smaller concentrations are targeted by numerous groups unchallenged by any significant opposing force save the United States and the UK.

Wasn't the "war" a Clintonian inevitability and DOD-advised? Remember that plan? In the Clinton-era fantasy, Kurds in the north and Shiites armed to the max in the south begin to isolate Saddam and his Sunnis. While it might have been possible in the North, the military did not like the idea of arming pro-Iranian militias. How would this not divide the country? What would Turkey think, or Iran? Would we supply air cover for Sadr and his army? And most intelligence experts at the time speculated Saddam probably had some chemical weapons.

Clinton, Kerry and others in March of 2003 imagined Saddam was further along in his designs and realized the consequences were too enormous for the "cat to get out of the bag". As Biden recently confessed, without sanctions Saddam was projected to have a crude nuke by 2007. A more realistic estimate might have been 2010 for Iran and Iraq. Intellectuals actually believed in 2003, Iran would come around and that destroying Saddam would present diplomatic opportunities, but then they didn't take into account that Rove made it impossible for Bush to be effective. He must have zapped Ahmadinejad too.

Iraq is a convenient excuse for Obama and Clinton, Kerry and Biden who declared some years back that a nuclear Iran was unacceptable. So if Bush pre-empts the Iranian bomb, is this "his" war too, or do Democratic declarations mean anything? I see, it is easier to say Rove caused the earth to move. Rove Rays caused Democrats to now think Iranian nukes are inevitable and Western Hegemony is another name for Empire. Rove is why Iraqis fight, or Syrians conspire. While I deplore national security becoming politicized as it has under Bush, it would hardly be the first time. Rove is gone. Rumsfeld is gone. It was a long time coming. Let?s get over it. The suggestion to resist the BS and stayed focused on the clear and present dangers is prudent, liberal and sane. If Democratic strategy for the last six years is a prelude to their course with Executive and Congressional power, America resist. Promises alway sound better than today's news.Is Iran any less dangerous if we start seeing the world through the Democrat's new glasses, or are we just giving sway to a new set of partisan asses?