It is precisely because saying the war is lost and failed doesn’t make it so, that the Democrats are going to have to do some fancy footwork to “get us out” of Iraq.

From today’s Philadelphia Daily News:

“… he [President Bush] rejected the notion that the war cannot be won, and vowed that the United States would not be ‘run out of the Middle East’ by extremists and radicals.”

He has put the ball back in the Democrats’ court. Your “shot clock” is running.

On mediation: the recent Lebanon/Israel war showed that we’re more impotent than ever when it comes to mediating anything. Libya is a success, but not one that we could accomplish in, say, 2006. Iraq has not only weakened our hand in the region, but in every other region in the world.

Your last question: the GOP just took a beating because they and the President won’t listen to public opinion on the unpopular, failed war. If a Democratic congress can’t make GWB listen over the next two years, it won’t help Democrats look good in any way, but neither will it help the GOP to be anchored to a lost, even less popular war.

In political terms, only the Republicans can execute the war in Iraq. The Democrats are committed to “getting us out.” So, the problem for the Democrats is how to devise an exit strategy that doesn’t look like retreat.

As to how we we have become a mediator, I refer you to Libya and Syria (Lebanon).

Now will you answer my question:

What exactly does this mean?

But looking like they can’t do anything about a stubborn president… well, that probably winds up hurting the GOP “brand” on national security more than anything.

Care to spell this out? I have no idea what this means in a practical sense. What do you believe people want in the Middle East, and that we are in a position to give them? Oil? Stability? Aircraft carriers? What?

But I thought we were arguing about the domestic political implications of Iraq. My point there is that a) I assume Bush isn’t going to pull out. If he does, though, he bears whatever political cost comes of it, wouldn’t you agree? If he leaves it to his successor to pull out, they bear the cost, whether Democrat or Republican. Your scenario in which the president pulls out and that leads to Democrats getting punished — that’s what I wanted you to spell out. I can see a President (whether Bush, a GOP successor, or a Democrat)taking the heat for a “helicopters on the roof” situation, but not really the congressional leaders of either party. Since you said you thought the Democrats had to deal with that *before* getting into the oval office, I wanted you to explain how you thought a GOP president would somehow manage to avoid the heat from it.

I didn’t vote for Republicans to get us out of Iraq. I voted against Democrats because they want to get us out of Iraq.

My view is this: We have 150,000 troops, give or take, smack dab in the Middle East. Talk about your “Roman Garrison”! Are we just sitting there getting fat? Nope, we are kicking terrorist ass — al Qaeda, ex – Ba’athists, Syrian and Iranian terrorists. Send us your Islamofascists yearning to “Meet the Virgins” and we’ll play matchmaker.

We’re also becoming a mediator. Whatever you want in the Middle East, you have to come to us to get it. Are we making new enemies? Not really. There’s always been a steady supply of haters of the Great Satan.

That won’t change if we leave, I believe. On the contrary, we will look toothless and weak.

Now, my question for you:

What exactly does this mean?

But looking like they can’t do anything about a stubborn president… well, that probably winds up hurting the GOP “brand” on national security more than anything.

That’s certainly what I expect to happen through the end of Bush’s term: Democrats steadily escalate scrutiny pressure, but not past the point of cutting off funding. Bush stubbornly keeps his war, and refuses to draw down. Democrats take the presidency, and are forced to bear whatever political costs emerge from our leaving Iraq, and the GOP says “but we were about to win the war” for the next 40 years.

That is why the Democrats are now expected to come up with an answer. You are right in saying that it is technically an Executive Branch issue, but it is up to the Legislature ro control the Hearings and the purse strings, and use the the power of the Sunday morning talk shows to accomplish the goal of extrication from Iraq.

If they can not or will not do so, they will open to the accusation that the campaign of 2006 was a fraud, promising change when they had no intention of bringing about change.

I knew they couldn’t and they wouldn’t, but lots of people voted for them, thinking that they could and they would.

Hence, the old saw, “Fool me once, etc…”

I don’t see why I need to “explain” why I think the next President will be a Republican in order to be understood.

Whether or not finishing up the job in Iraq is left until after 2008, I still believe the next President will be a Republican.

If I wished to get into a totally off – topic debate as to why I think that is so (I most assuredly don’t), I would be asking for an avalanche of comments from people who disagree with me — mostly because of wishful thinking.

This would not approach the issue I raised.

If the Democrats seek to “solve” the “Iraq problem” (the usage is intentional — it is important for the Democrats to avoid calling a war a war at all costs) they must resolve the three issues I raised.

Do you think I am wrong? Tell me why.

Do you have the answers to those issues? Fine.

If not, why throw bad questions after good?

* Why people insist on employing that obnoxious usage is beyond me — it makes my skin crawl.

On 3, the war on terror will be much more credible if we’re doing things to help it, rather than undermine it, as our Iraq invasion did, so that’s a start.

1) How do they “bug out” of Iraq, without looking like they have “bugged out”?

2) How do they avoid a “helicopters on the roof” imagery (some of us do remember May, 1975, and who was directly responsible)?

3) How do we continue a credible “Global War on Terror” having left Iraq (and Afghanistan?) with our tail between our legs?

You don’t have to answer these questions, but if the Democrats ever want to see the inside of the White House again, except at the (Republican) President’s invitation, they do.

Whoops, I meant just on Romney and Giuliani. Brownback’s a contender from the right. Allen’s a loser, though. He’s done.

I have a feeling that Gingrich is going to surge as a take-back-the-party conservative. I also wouldn’t write off Brownback from the right, as well as Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter from the nativist wing. Huckabee, Hagel, Condi, Tommy Thompson, and Pataki are all jokes in terms of winning the nomination. So as I said above, it’s between McCain and some firebreather like Tancredo or Gingrich, and hopefully an antiwar insurgent, like maybe Gingrich in another role or one of the moderates. I’m telling you, if Dugger’s jumped ship on the war, there’s space in the primary season for an antiwar Republican. It just remains to be seen who that might be.

The names being bandied about now will not make it to the Convention Hall.

Romney
Giuliani
McCain
Brownback
Allen

Not a one of them.