Had John Kerry managed to flip Ohio and banish [ via the hay-seed mathematics of the electoral college] from the White House the mindless, faux-cowpoke troll currently residing there I am certain there would be, at present, more media buzz about caravans of Democrats streaming across the border of our northern neighbor than the not entirely stark or compelling differences cited in the article. No. The budding catastrophe would have reached full bloom on Kerrys watch [ the mistakes made by Bush and Rummy and the CPA were of such magnitude there was no way to stall their momentum]and the off year elections would have increased the Republican majorities and made certain that a grinning corporate hologram like Romney would ascend in 2008.

Excuse the retrograde science fiction, the point I am wobbling towards is this; the scale of the disaster, the long term disaster,the Boy President and his tutors have cooked up is, to quote the Surfer, 'epic'. The middle east has never been so unstable, Iraq has never seen such ruination and never has the American brand been so despised. The fool from Crawford has unleashed all manner of radiation upon the scene and, as I remember, the half-life is unkind. So, right now it is the business of serious politicians to educate a lazy minded public about the stark realities of their inheritance and, you know, strive to make realism a popular brand.

Prior to Bush and Cheney's invasion there were a few politicians who stood - generally by themselves - and decried Congressional support for an ill-advised, ill-planned, and what has become an ill-prosecuted war in Iraq. Most of the arguments posited AGAINST the invasion dealt with a belief that Iraq had no cache of WMDs, and that there was no connection between Iraq/Saddam and those who perpetrated the attack on the Trade Towers.

The media backlash against these naysayers was disgusting and pols like Kucinich and Jim McDermott found themselves dodging attacks from the right wing and even some of their colleagues in Congress. That Kucinich and McDermott have never heard an apology...from anyone...for having demonstrated the strength of their convictions remains a blot on the media and the DNC. Forget Faux News...

Senator Clinton's position on Iraq was faulty to begin with. Her delayed, reluctant criticism of the Bush administration, and of the military adventure in Iraq, will continue to color my estimation of her ability to lead. Frankly, Senator Clinton has long since morphed into the consummate politician looking to get elected. It would appear that she is as connected to K Street as Bush/Cheney and that she is determined to perpetuate a system that allows for the kind of horrific governance that has brought about the maelstrom that is Iraq. Short of a public apology for her support of this war, and the abandonment of her determined stance that an American military presence will have to remain in Iraq, I could not, in good conscience, vote for her.

Dennis Kucinich is the best of the field, and the most transparent, non-self-serving candidate on either side. The shame is, he has NO chance because he is not a card-carrying member of the same club to which Clinton and the Republicant candidates belong.

That leaves Barack Obama. While he is cut of much of the same cloth as Clinton, he has consistently been against the imperialistic military adventure in the Middle East. Moreover, his presence in the White House would serve as a public refusal to further support the despotic behavior of George Bush - First or Second.

Mike Gravel? A very entertaining wild card.

One way or another, when we leave Iraq our forces will inevitably be replaced by a Muslim-nation peace keeping force of some kind. It will be made up of the armed factions of the different players in the region who, after having been unable to get rid of Saddam themselves for decades, sat on the sidelines and watched us do their work for them - poorly. After having failed, we will leave, as everyone local knew we would, and Iraq's future becomes a fractured prize that will be fought over bloodily. And we will be responsible for what they will have wrought.

Only when the U.S. President directs that our troops to leave Iraq will we see fundamental progress among the Iraqis toward national reconciliation. By keeping our troops in Iraq we've permitted a dangerous dependency to develop. Each day Americans are dying in attempting to provide security that at this point should be the sole responsibilities of the Iraqis.

Richardson has the best plan for Iraq because 1) he'll get all of our troops out and 2) he has the foreign policy experience and expertise to wage the diplomatic offensive that will be necessary to see the region not descend into further conflict. Richardson understands that our troops have become the targets of all sides in a civil war. In addition, Richardson advocates bringing in all Moslem-nation peace keeping force to Iraq and will spearhead regional peace conferences on Iraq.

This is what Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (Ret.) has said about Richardson's plan:

"Overwhelming majorities of Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, oppose the presence of US troops in Iraq and believe that US troops are more a cause of violence than a solution to it. Our presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency, strengthens Al Qaeda, and distracts us from the urgent task of defeating the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. It's time for a phased and coordinated, but rapid, withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, and Governor Richardson has a realistic plan to do it."

Unlike the other Democratic candidates, Richardson doesn't try to have it both ways on Iraq: bash Bush for invading Iraq to appeal to the anti-war voters but then advocate keeping a residual forces of tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for the indefinite future.

Baghdad is Iraq’s largest city with 7 million residents. Iraq has 15 other major cities, hundreds of smaller cities and towns and thousands of villages with another 20 million people in a nation the size of California. We don't have nearly enough troops now in Iraq to bring peace and stability to the country - and never will absent re-instating the draft and sending over 600,000+ soldiers, which of course should not and will not occur.

Keeping up to 50,000 troops in Iraq as Clinton, Obama and Biden advocate means that the insurgents and militia forces in Iraq will have a much easier time killing our troops. The extremists can concentrate all of their forces on a much smaller number of U.S. troops.

Clinton, Biden and Edwards were wrong to vote for the war. And Clinton, Obama and Biden are wrong today to advocate for an extended (even if reduced) deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. The scars of this war of choice by President Bush and the members of Congress that supported it will last for generations. The longer we delay the inevitable, the deeper the wounds are inflicted.

Finally, it is inaccurate to imply that Richardson supported the war from the beginning. On CNN on March 11, 2003, just eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson criticized the Bush Administration's rush to war and accurately predicted that a unilateral invasion by the U.S. would hurt our prestige worldwide:

CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we're going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we're to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don't support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

. . .CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That's the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq's behavior, let's do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don't do that, I think it's going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it's going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it's frustrating, but what's the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it's not an immediate threat. It's not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we're under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let's be judicious. Let's be calm. Let's be patient.