Why win the battle just to lose the war? The Dems could defund the war and then remain out of power for the next 30 years or so, because the general public no longer trusts them to deal with national security.

We already won the war; it’s the open-ended occupation we’re losing. We overthrew a secular tyrant, set up a largely puppet gov’t, and now have a religious civil war to deal with. Iraq is not Nam, it’s not our fight anymore. Selfish as it may be that, not continued support, is what the American people are saying. And by the way: Which polls are you seeing that would make you think the democrats are the ones who can’t be trusted with national security? I really am curious.

Hehe, sry, can’t resist: It’s hard work, but someone has to do it!

Personally, I initially hesitated before I started to participate in the blogosphere’s discussions, because of concerns about the ethical justification for doing so. My final conclusion on this question is: In this global era, where US actions affect the whole world, it is only fair for people from the rest of the world to bring their views to the attention of Americans. A logical arguement isn’t less valuable just because it comes from a Dutch, German, or any other ‘world citizen’.

But, pls don’t misunderstand me: Of course, going beyond discussion and instead directly supporting a candidate, financially or logistically, is a totally different ballgame. This would be an inappropriate intrusion into the US democratic process. That’s where I see the line that shouldn’t be crossed for ‘outsiders’.

No offence, Dustin, but you should be grateful that foreigners step in and offer their point of views. But we don’t tell anybody who he/she should vote for. We just present some arguements on the pros and cons. Imho this is a valuable addition to the discussion, since the view from the outside often exposes problems that can’t easily be recognized from within. The ‘wood for the trees’ situation, you know…

People can preach all they want about wanting cooperation but as long as the other guys are trying to screw you over all you end up with is appeasement.

What’s partisanship got to do with it? Look at the polls: The surge isn’t supported by the american public. Period. Regardless of party affiliation, a large group of voters is against it. Pelosi and other Dems are merely fulfulling a role as advocates for this group by questioning Bush’s strategy.

Nelson

Asymmetric

Bush is doing nothing wrong. What he is doing is showing the democrats MODERATE stripes are GONE. HE is forcing them to the LEFT and forcing them to Polarize their party once again because:

THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF COMPROMISING.

This is the type of thing that should have been worked out in back rooms long before Bush announced it. And years ago it would have. But Bush is Calling Nancy Pelosi’s hand and she now must respond. Her only recourse is to huff and puff and blow down Bush’s house of cards and in the process………POLARIZE once again the Democratic party and swing them left.

How shrewd. Im surprised you democrats are not seeing thru this manuevering. Perhaps its because you love being polarized while preaching moderation. Send them emails to your congressman and senator. I know I do.

Sorry, but I gotta disagree with this bit of received wisdom. What I suspect people want, is for us to get the hell out of Iraq, regardless of how that’s accomplished.

And while a compromise solution might be nice, it has yet to be shown that anything of the sort is possible with this president.

Brute partisan politcs seems to be the only game this administration plays, and such can only be succesfully encountered in kind.

If a Democratic congress manages to compel the president to pull out of Iraq, I suspect the public will not quibble about the tactics used, regardless of how partisan.

Next Hilly went it Iraq and said, like Chayes, she dosen’t like Malaki and, in fact, MSM has agreed there never was a working relationship. Malaki now wants to leave too, but does need some guns to keep the enemy at bay as we haul ass, but, hey, maybe he can get some troops from Afghanistan where Hilly said it’s okay. I got that the other guy wasn’t liked by Hilly, Plame, Chayes, and their group and so we chose Malaki. I guess if you were for him there, you had to macarana, but that’s not important anymore is it? He had a real close relationship to CIA, so maybe it was a money problem.

Pelosi is following up Hilly and she is a write off. Pelsoi did okay with the intelligence committee and there is no oversight and they did nothing wrong planning the Afghanistan war. The congressional gold medal for Spain may have been a mistake, but, hey, if they are that easy, just sell ‘em off to Joe, his dad, and Plame.