The WH realized this, and tried to overcorrect, (by saying this had never been the policy) but Bush’s statement only emphasized the WH’s withdrawel from reality. I think more and more voters are picking up on this, and it will cost him next Tuesday. I actually was surprised that the Dems didn’t capitalize and use Bush’s “flipflop” in their campaign ads.

What is terrifying to me is that just as many of the mujahdeen that we trained in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets used that training to train terrorists,some members of the police and army that we have invested so much in are joining the militias. The police force is already heavily infiltrated. This is probably the main reason that Maliki can’t control the violence. With anarchy on the streets, militias can act with impunity. Maliki is alligned with Sadr- so Sadr City has become off-limits to American forces. Maliki says he wants control of Iraqi forces-but that would mean the militias will continue to operate freely, since he needs their cooperation to hold the country together.

Dick Cheney is not gonna like Democrats with subpoena power. An article in this months issue lays out in detail why.

Here’s another reason to consider Iraq to already be a lost cause. We wanted the Iraqis to have a government and now they have one. Of course it’s one that is too weak to do anything about heavily armed militias that kill Sunnis and Americans and we don’t have the forces to do anything about them either. So Maliki panders to them and gives them whatever they want.

A story made the news today that 90,000 weapons that were supposed to go to the Iraqi army have gone missing-no one knows. Another article described how contractor KBR was paid huge sums for overhead and security for 9 months, while doing almost no reconstruction work. And the mismanagement continues.

Additionally, any changes will have to go through our legislators, both house &Senate. That will mean Bush/Cheney/rummy will need more than one “stay the course” plan. That can and should lead to discussions between the white house and our other two branches.

I really don’t think the Democrats are being dishonest by not bringing a definitive Iraq policy to the table. They are being politically astute, which may be worse. But then everybody’s doing it these days.

There are no good options left other than turning to those countries Bush labelled the Axis of Evil- Syria (while not on the original list, a worthy replacement for Iraq) and Iran.

This, I suggest, will never happen as long as Bush is president, and his administration’s attitude to the rest of the world is so toxic its doubtful the help which might have come from that direction will now materialise until his term of office is over.

A majority of Americans believe the War was wrong and is weakening the country, but they also understand that to abandon Iraq now would be a further disaster, not because it would be seen as a victory for Al Qaeda (they gained that the day Bush invaded), but for the millions of Iraqis who will die horribly in the inevitable civil war that will follow any pull out.

The Dems know there is no immediate solution that will fit into a soundbite, and to offer anything more detailed than ‘we need to change course’ would open them to a killer blow.

While the Iraq war is the single most important issue facing America today, the possibility of honest debate was crushed the day Karl Rove decided labelling Democrats traitors was the best way to win a permanent majority.

The war, the end of wars over petroleum, erosion of civil rights, hatred of Americans, greenhouse gases and global warming, American jobs and the future of our economy and of future generations.

Here’s how a different vision — and YES we do have one — can change all of these things at once.

Petropower or Homegrown Green Fuels ?

Please pass this link on if you can see this vision of ending the waste of blood and treasure on the desert sands. We can (largely) end our dependence on foreign oil.

Julian Zelizner, whoever he is, seems to think that’s the case, but even he doesn’t speculate on the motives of either side. That’s on the table courtesy of you alone.

“However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses,” Bush told a raucous crowd

Yeah gotta love that Republican plan.

Uhh, because Republicans just act they are in a cult that worships Bush as a minor God? Compared to that, Pe-wee Hertman would seem a resaonable counter to the clownshow currently known as Republican governance.

If you oppose what Bush is doing, about all you got is Democrats. I think with the Dems, you have a chance of a least getting some high caliber thought on the subject.

With Republicans you just get more of the same.

Believe me, I have my beef with the establishment dems, but your constant “woe is me” about Dems rings hollow when you consider what an empty bag your favored party has turned out to be.

“My hunch is that there wouldn’t be a large change in American foreign policy with a divided government because there really hasn’t been a deep division over the overall direction of that policy,” says Julian Zelizer, a specialist in foreign policy and contemporary American politics at Boston University.

“It’s ironic because the rhetoric has been so fierce,” Mr. Zelizer adds. “But there is general consensus on the war on terror, and even on Iraq it’s principally a matter of specifics – for example, the exit strategy and how to handle the Iraqi government. It’s not, ‘the president says stay’ versus ‘the Democrats say get out now.’ ”

Joe interpreted that to mean that Bush is falsely playing up the differences between his policy and that which the Dems would take, but my point is that what Zelizer really said is that the rhetoric has been harsh but really both sides aren’t very far from each other on how they would handle Iraq- so why are the Dems trying to portray themselves as the antidote to Bush?

Say what?? I reread the article and failed to see even the faintest hint of duplicity.

Do you know something about the motives of Democrats all the rest of us don’t? Seems like you’re claiming to.

Well, the only way to see that happen would be impeachment. But as a good Republican you don’t want that either. Why? Because even if they take the Senate and House Democrats would still be limited by their powers versus those of the President, the Commander-in-Chief. Bush would still be President. Cheney will still be VP. Rummy will still be SecDef.

What could the Democrats do? They could threaten to vote to withhold funding for the war. Then you and your fellow Republicans would scream about them being weak on defense and refusing to support our troops. The truth is that anyone who supports the Republicans would attack the Democrats if they actually did anything within the limits of legislative power to attempt to change things. So who’s really being duplicitous?