So you're saying this is the Republicans' war to loose. I agree. Because Democrats didn't start this war they have everything to gain from advertising how bad it is, a job made easier by the rising body count. I wouldn't go so far as laying blame for the war on them, but they do benefit from it politically. Both parties have their share of opportunists, and those among the Democrats fully understand that they swept congress because of the war's unpopularity. But in times of peace the people tend to elect a president from one party and a congressional majority from the other, so if the war ends before Bush's term then the Dems' chances of taking the White House are slim. For them it all comes down to a simple choice: they can end the war or they can win the presidency (it's unlikely they'll do both). Knowing what you know about politicians in general, which choice do you suppose they'll make?
On a side note, implying that the sectarian conflict in Iraq is none of our business because it constitutes a civil war is lame. If it is a civil war then we are responsible for starting it and that makes it our business.
|