The Republicans in D.C. know the war is lost, but ...

Seems like a good stratedgy to me... ;)

It worked before! :^(

As usual, sneaky republicans!

As long as Bush has a 'human shield' and money, the war will go on. His Human Rights record in Texas proves that.

We are sneaky. We're going to have to come up with a new plan now though. Darn it, Peter, you've foiled us!

I hope you know I'm totally kidding. Except about being sneaky. I am totally sneaky. So sneaky, my kids already know what they're getting for Christmas...

Snakes coil, ready to strike at an opportune moment. Then they swallow you whole. Sound familiar?

If they can blame anything on the Dems, they will

Watch out for Hilary!

We knew exactly where he was in the Sudan. That was under Pres. Clinton we pressure the gov. there to expell him. Guess where he went and we still have not found him.

Well, this is what a Democrat-talking-head-guy said during the news last night. The Republican-talking-head-guy certainly wouldn't just come out and say something like that.

Time will tell if it is tried.

Just to let you know, the Dems have the power to end the War. they can A) keep sending Bush bills with timelines attached, or B) kill every war funding bill before it goes to the President. But why dont they do that? Why do they continue to give Bush the resources he needs? It really is the $64,000 question. They have a majority, and thus they control everything that goes to the President. The Dems could have ending this War months ago by cutting the funding. But they dont, because they dont really believe what they say. They are cowards and liars.

Because he really believes in what he is doing, Nan. He really knows whats at stake. We know what he thinks. You would have to be a brain-dead chimp not to know what Bush's stance on the war is. But when the Dems give us mixed signals, like speaking out against the war, and voting to give Bush $100 billion to fight the war on the same day, I dont know what they think.

I believe you are absolutely right. So it's all the Democrats fault and Bush and his cronies fatted calves are only fatter.

The Dems are afraid of the criticisms (and they work) "You Don't Support The Troops!". "You Just CUT AND RUN". It's hard to do the right thing and not commit political suicide when you're up against Republicans. They just always have better slogans. The one with the better slogans seems to do SO well.

Funny how it comes down to that.

Oh, come on. You're reducing us all to behaving like 6-year-olds with GI Joes or something ...

Time for plan B: Blame the Dems!

Peter, I doubt the Dems are afraid of a lame duck President and a small minority. They may be afraid of the Homos or the African Americans, but they are not afraid of the Republicans. They would have the backing of 2/3 of America and most of the world if they cut the funds. But they refuse to do it.

I wonder why

really

What is that Nancy Polosi doing? We see her on TV, sometimes, speach making in Congress - but what? It's very hard to keep up with it all.

I do to Peter. You know, I only really respect two Democrats: Leiberman and Kucinich. We know where they stand, they speak their minds, and they have the balls to practice what they preach. I like Leiberman, and I hate Kucinich, but I do respect them both.

If the Dems don't do anything about anything they're in BIG trouble next election.

I wonder if the Green Party will take over.

Look out for the next staged attack. Wounded predators are dangerous. And yes, look out for Hillary too. Always. She'll ooze her way into any situation and turn it to make herself look good. (Hah. You notice I am not very partisan.)

Maybe the Libertarians have a chance - But won't they turn America into the Wild Wild West?

"ooze"? Colorful.

We've gotten so use to the Republicans playing "follow the leader" that a lot of people expect the Democrats to do the same. Anybody who knows anything about the Democratic Party knows that is an unrealistic expectation.

War is murder and he's the Commander In Chief (AND A DRAFT DODGER - never served) put my life in his hands and trust me, HE'LL LOSE.

Yeah, they say the Democrats couldn't organize a two car funeral.

Democrats aren't famous for "follow the leader" or "staying on message" or being a "monolith"

It's what keeps them from having the best unifying slogans, and what keeps them so creative.

Do you have any facts to support this claim?

As I already stated up there somewhere in one of my comments,

"Well, this is what a Democrat-talking-head-guy said during the news last night. The Republican-talking-head-guy certainly wouldn't just come out and say something like that.

Time will tell if it is tried."

This article hits the nail on the head. The Republican strategy is to always blame their adversaries for their failures and take the plaudits for their successes. Iraq is a failure and history will acknowledge this.

And it is the strategy of the Dems to blame the "Republican obstructionism" for everything. The Dems can end the war if they cut the funding. They have a majority. Fine, they cant over turn a veto, but they can kill every spending bill or keep sending spending bills with timetables attached. The Dems know this. But they would rather use the troops and the war as a political issue for 2008, rather than taking any meaningful action. Everybody knows Bush will not end the war. Thus, the Democrats in Congress are the only ones who can. It is now partly their responsibility. THey can end the war, and they are insulting the American people and their supporters every moment they waist blaming the Republicans.

Nan, history will probably judge Iraq as it judges Vietnam; an unnecessary and preventable failure with long lasting consequences.

If Bush really believes we are in ANY kind of position to come out of Iraq in ANY sense of a win, or winning situation, then he is a bigger idiot than I even think he is! I think he needs the war to pull attention away from his problems here at home, and from his regressive policies he's so subtly trying to put into place.

... subtly and not so sublty.

Peter:

"Updated: 3:58 p.m. PT Aug 23, 2007
NEW YORK - Sen. John Warner said Thursday President Bush should start bringing home some troops by Christmas to show the Baghdad government that the U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended.

The move puts the prominent Republican at odds with the president, who says conditions on the ground should dictate deployments.

Warner, R-Va., said the troop withdrawals are needed because Iraqi leaders have failed to make substantial political progress, despite an influx of U.S. troops initiated by Bush earlier this year.

Warner: Bush should begin Iraq withdrawal
Aug. 23: Virginia Sen. John Warner says President Bush should announce a small initial pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq on September 15"

Looks to me like the heavy-hitting Republican leaders are in agreement with you, Peter. They want OUT of Iraq!

PERIOD!

END OF SUBJECT.

Peter:

Might as well add this Republican voice:

"Lugar: U.S. Must Reduce Military Presence In Iraq
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, tonight announced his support for an immediate shift in Iraq policy, calling on President Bush "to downsize the U.S. military's role in Iraq and place much more emphasis on diplomatic and economic options."

In a major speech on the Senate floor, Lugar said that "victory" in Iraq as defined by President Bush is now "almost impossible." The current course of the war "has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond," he said.

Lugar warned that "persisting indefinitely" with Bush's escalation strategy "will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term." He specifically rejected claims that withdrawing U.S. forces will increase instability. Downsizing the U.S. military presence in Iraq would "strengthen our position in the Middle East, and reduce the prospect of terrorism, regional war, and other calamities," Lugar said. Watch it

Hi there,
If you want an "eye-opener" please read executive order #13303 signed by Bush in May of 2004. As a brief summary this EO guarantees that all Iraq oil will be shipped to the United States. You can probably find it at the Library of Congress.
We have to ponder whether this is what the war is all about.
Many thanks,
Bob Cornell

For the Democrats in Washington now to be true to the nation they must be willing to lose their seats. If they can't do that then I will be looking elsewhere next presidential election. Somebody up there has to care more about our country than their pensions and excellent health insurance. I am a Democrat and I am so fed up it is to the point of being unbearable. It won't take much for me to go with a different party as soon as one is viable, or maybe not so biable. I am losing anyway. Much of this is greed and rage for issues here in America. People do not want to do hand-outs. They'd rather throw the money and other childrens' lives to the gutter than give someone in America something for free. That to me is the basic difference between a Republican and a Democrat.

There have been Republicans against the current state of things in Iraq for a long time now. I don't think it's Bush's stance so it won't be what effects the final spin on it in years to come.

But as I said, we shall see.

Let's all get back together in 5 years to see if I was right or wrong - ha ha

yep that sounds like their strategy. Heaven forbid Shrub take any responsiblity for his screw ups

This article is interesting as a look back to what will be close to a year, since the article was originally wrttien.

The primaries well under way, and almost finished. Obama looking ever more the likely Demcrat nomminee.

I wonder how many of the things raised in the article and these following comments are now showing up, in the primarty election speeches.

Yes, Peter. It will be great to come back in 5 yeras to see if you are right. Maybe it will even be easy to see that, after one more year.