I don't have an alternative to the two-party system, other than the obvious, a more-party system. This is one of the (many) reasons that I am a libertarian. The general perception among the American public is that either the GOP or the DNC represents one side or another of a given issue, and that these sides tend to be opposed. When we talk about issues being "politicized", or any given topic being "political", this is what we tend to mean. Thus, when I poke fun at the idea of Intelligent Design, saying it's "political" means either that you think I have an ulterior motive (supposedly dictated to me by some establishment or another), or that you desire to debate the issue within the context of the dual party system. Either way, this notion of a binary politicization really detracts from discussions of given issues on their own merits.

The case in point is the Iraq war. It is very difficult to discuss this issue outside of either very clear motivations based on loyalties or dislikes, or an inevitable devolution to a run-of-the-mill "us versus them" debate. Examples include criticism of the U.S. invasion: well, "both sides" voted for it, so how can you be critical of it? Both Democrats and Republicans have a big problem right now, with the public dissatisfied, being that the vast majority voted for the war. So the distancing looks almost the same; "it's going poorly because of its handling, we would have done a better job." Sure.

This system lends itself perfectly to a cause like the GOP's. Faced with criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence to get us into Iraq, one response concerns the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, signed by Clinton. Clinton laid much of the groundwork for the current invasion, so how can you say that it's Bush's fault? (You know you're in trouble when the best we can do is say, "I may be wrong, but you were all wrong, too.") See, in the current climate, the War Party is not the GOP. It's both sides of our two-party system. If the DNC is quicker to recognize and admit a mistake, it's mostly because they stand to gain more political capital by doing so.

The conservative blogosphere has been quick to take the Iraq intelligent criticism to its extreme ("Bush lied") and conduct a campaign based on this false dilemma. "Just Google It", that is, "Iraq+Clinton+1998", and prove it to you ignorant self that Bush did not lie us in to Iraq. Now, never mind that two presidents could both lie. I mean, that's totally outside of the realm of possibilities. And we know that Clinton never lied, so he's the ideal corroborator. Forget that. Everybody thought Saddam had WMDs. Even I thought so. See, this is yet another false dilemma, for how could anybody believe Iraq had WMDs and yet not want the invasion of Iraq?

Is the idiocy of this illogic clear? I didn't want the invasion because I was not aware of conclusive evidence of said WMDs, and apparently, neither was anybody else. Inspections after inspections said they didn't exist. Military analysts said they were destroyed in the Gulf War. But Bush and company kept pushing Chalabi's words, kept going on television talking about mushroom clouds, and now we've got our quagmire. The crime was not that anybody "lied". The crime was that this country has been so damn shellshocked by 9/11 that its elected officials have been unable to reason through the problems with this new intervention and occupation strategy, and overcome with a patriotic sense of duty and loyalty to leadership.

Now that this has faded, and reason has begun to take hold, only a few brave souls like John Murtha have been able to take the step. The response by conservatives? Until Cheney softened the blow, that questioning the war and its reasons was "irresponsible" and "reprehensible", with some on the floor questioning Murtha's cowardice. One representative rose to pass a message from a Marine in Iraq, "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Neither the Marine (if there was one) nor the Republican representative apparently knew that Murtha was a Marine veteran of over 30 years, earning the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. See what politicization does to logic? To war heroes?

War supporters have a really hard time telling you what "success" will look like in Iraq (though I personally think it entails a quota for Baghdad McDonald's). For detractors, it's a no-win debate, really. When we do pull out troops, it will be because of the success of our mission, and the whole shebang heralded as a triumph. It won't matter that factions within the country continue to war, or that soldiers keep dying, or that suicide bombers find their targets. And, so long as we don't pull out, it's because we're "staying the course", despite the course having never really been explained. Elections are supposed to be held in Iraq next month, and this is assumed to be the catalyst (as was the toppling of Saddam, the provisional elections, and the ratifying of the constitution) that's going to quell the beast. Do you think it will? 68 soldiers have died this month (so far) alone in Iraq; 96 in October, the bloodiest month since the elections in January '05. Is this success? It doesn't matter. Look for the start of troop pullouts in 2006; it'll be because of our success, not pressure back home.

Everybody, the war problem needs to be examined free of political bias, outside of the GOP versus DNC and subsequent loyalties to make any sense. Iraq isn't what America is for. Nothing else is happening for our country. Where's my tax reform? Social security reform? We made Iraq our problem, and now it's our biggest. Brought to you by the Republicans. Oh, and the Democrats, too. Thanks!