You know, when you think about it, the best thing that ever happened to the Dem party was Iraq.

[renie408]

I was just talking to my husband about how feelings would have been different if Iraq had gone well. And it occurred to me that it may have been the end of the Dem party if it had. I swear, this isn't some kind of ass backwards defense of the people that voted Aye (or yes, COSPONSORED) the IWR. But think about it. If they hadn't screwed up so much in Iraq, Bush would have a blank check to rape this country in anyway he wanted. I think we should all send Rummy and his buddies a Thank You note.

Edited to add:

I am not going to change the original post because that seems like 'cheating'. I posted without thinking and I deserve to get smacked for it. But I would like to add that I do not literally think that the war was a GOOD thing in any way. I was reading another thread where someone created a scenario where Iraq actually went the way 'they' intended it. It got me to thinking about ALL the things the Bush administration has done and would like to do in this country. If they had gotten Iraq a little more 'right', the rest of their agenda would not be getting the scrutiny it does now.

[babylonsister]

1. Tell that to parents, kids, and spouses who have lost a loved one. nt

[Lerkfish]

2. um...no thanks. wanton warmongering and gleeful "sacrificing" of our

best and bravest for their own illicit gains does not deserve a thank you note. Unless its one stapled to their chest before being hung for war crimes.

[monktonman]

3. ummmm.....you've got to be effing kidding, right?

some thoughts are best kept to yourself.

[renie408]

8. Yeah, you are right. Apparently that didn't come out on 'paper'

the way it ran through my head. In my head, it wasn't support of the war or actual support of Rummy.

[Mass]

4. It would be a lot better if the war did not happen at all.

I understand what you think, but remember it is more than politics on paper. This war impacted the life of many Americans and many Iraqis. So, cynicism has a limit.

[renie408]

6. Thanks. I will keep that in mind. I forget sometimes

that stream of conciousness is not oftentimes the best way to post.

[marmar]

5. No, gracias.

This war is not only destroying Iraq, it's destroying this country too. I don't think any Democrat benefits from that.

[twilight_sailing]

7. I am an American first

and a political animal second.

This war cost our boys life and limb. The war against Iraq will cost us 2 trillion dollars when the bill comes due. It has cost us our esteem all around the world and we need allies to combat al-qaeda which is in 60 other countries.

The gains one party might make over another are nothing, literally nothing, in comparison.

[renie408]

9. I know, I know. There are some observations

should be kept to yourself. Or maybe worded differently.

[twilight_sailing]

10. No, I don't think you do know.

I don't think such observations are mis-worded or that they should be silenced. That is not what I said.

[renie408]

11. ?

I don't want to ascribe more to what you are saying than is intended. I get that the war is bad and I do not LITERALLY think it is a good thing for this party. To think that way would be evil. I don't *think* I am evil. At least, I like to think I am not. My thinking was that Iraq is bad, but it is only ONE way that Bush is really bad for this country. But it is the one way that has a lot of people looking at his administration with disfavor. Without Iraq, Bush would have a much easier time subverting our rights, raping the environment and handing this country over to giant corporations. That was sort of what I was thinking.

[mtnsnake]

12. Yeah, really, since it contributed to getting Bush re-elected to a second term

Yup, best thing that ever happened to us.

[Richard D]

13. I would have rather seen . . .

. . . the democratic party crumble into obscurity than to have had this fucking war.

[karynnj]

14. I wish you would have prefaced this comment

with some recognition that this was an immoral war and then added this comment. (From other posts, I think that you would not want a war for party gain.)

Anyway, I dissagree. If the war would have quickly been resolved - and a constitution enacted and a leader chosen, it would have made Bush a heavy favorite for 2004. (So, as in real life, Hillary would not have run) It would have impacted who the candidate would have been. Kerry with his anti-war past of the 70s and his statements against the war in 2003, including calling for "regime change" at home would likely have had no chance at that time. Dean would have clearly had no traction in 2004 unless he had stuck to his original issues before he became labelled as the anti-war candidate. The candidate would likely have been Leiberman, Gepheart or Edwards - all sponsors of the resolution who could say they were bi-partisan and had supported the effort.

Bush 1 had a war deemed a success that ended (and began) in early 1991. Assume W's ended in 2003 nearly as quickly. Bush 1 had a 90 % approval rating during that short war - a year later it was less than half of that. The same thing could have happened to W. As the win became history, attention would focus primarily on domestic issues.

It would have been harder to cast people who supported the war as weak or unwilling to stand up to terror. (Leiberman because he looks weak would not win the primaries) In real 2004, the exit polls showed that the public agreed with Kerry on all the domestic issues. Any of these candidates would have had positons closer to Kerry's than Bush's on all these issues - so they do would likely have been supported on these issues by the majority of people.

The real question would come down to terror. Could they after winning a war have kept the same omnipresent veil of dread and fear - or would the emotion generating by winning (rah rah) - have dispelled some of the terror generated by being attacked.

For the parties, in each party, it would have favored the more neo-con or at least willing to have an aggressive role in the world. In the Democratic party - the wing hurt would be the liberal wing. It would have been deemed to have been wrong. In the Republican party, if he won in 2004 - Bush would now be the Republican king maker. If he lost, within his party, he would be a semi-respected former President just like his dad. Not the deified Reagan, but not the vilified Nixon.

[salin]

15. best.thing.ever? New Deal, Great Society - chicken feed?

While I understand the point you are trying to make - historically it is a wee bit shortsighted.

[maxsolomon]

16. absent 9/11 & iraq

kerry would be president. or gore. or clark.

* could not have won in 04 without the jingoist vote.

[many a good man]

17. "Things have to get worse before they can get better"

I've been telling myself that for the past 25 years. All during that time I wondered "how much worse can it get? What will it take to awaken fellow Americans from their stupor??" I hope to God that we have now finally awakened.

I can sort of empathize with OP's intention. I don't want things to worsen. I want people to wake up, both Democrats and Republicans.