The president's word

Trying to take the president at his word with regard to Iraq is tricky. One minute our top priority is finding WMDs, the next minute it is to hunt dictators, then we're fighting to defend ourselves in the central front in the war on terrah-ism, and finally we are establishing an oasis of freedom lovers in a land of evil doers.

Rather than attack the rhetoric/marketing/excuses of the Bush administration it is sometimes helpful to take him at his word and examine his performance.

For instance, take the "central front" claim as true. We're told we're fighting "them" there so we don't have to fight "them" here. Them is either Iraqis, agents of al Qaeda, Muslims, or Arabs, I'm not sure which.

Putting that aside, we move on and ask, "If this is an important operation, how are we doing?"

The answer to that question is, "Not good".

Either the president is correct and we are doing an abysmal job winning an important war on his watch, or he is wrong and we are doing an abysmal job winning a war of folly on his watch.

Sure the latter option is worse, because it highlights bad judgment and incompetence, as opposed to good judgment and incompetence, but perhaps democratic candidates ought to consider letting the president work for them while he travels around hyping the importance of the Iraq war.

While president Bush convinces Americans the war is vitally strategic, democratic candidates should highlight the president's incompetence when it comes to meeting the challenge.