Gotta look pretty to campaign

[Mazer]

We weren't talking about the GOP now were we? Have you nothing to say about the Democrat candidates? You could talk about how Obama is the only one who isn't an embarrassment to the Dems. No?

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Have you nothing to say about the Democrat candidates? You could talk about how Obama is the only one who isn't an embarrassment to the Dems. No?

the 2008 Prez elections just aren't on the radar for me yet - ending the war is far and away the most pressing issue for this country. besides, the run-ups to the primaries is all theater this point, no substance from anybody, just posturing and symbolism...the most interesting potential candidates, imo, are Chuck Hagel and Al Gore.

[Mazer]

The Dems won't let Bush end the war before they get a chance to put one of their own in the White House so that person can end the war. Mark my words.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Mazer

The Dems won't let Bush end the war before they get a chance to put one of their own in the White House so that person can end the war. Mark my words.

no, the republicans aren't going to end the war. bush has veto power the dems can't override without their votes.

if the republicans wanted it over it would be finished.

they know it's a lost cause so the reps will let this fester until we elect a democratic president. this way at least they can shift blame to a democrat for leaving this civil-war "before we could 'win' it."

meanwhile the american bodies pile up.

- js.

[albed]

Yeah at about one twentith the rate of Iraqi bodies.

The dems got elected by promising to end the war in Iraq so why would they actually end it when they can keep using it in future elections to get the dumb sucker vote?

The Republicans want to win the war, not end it, and they're more interested in the well being of their country instead of winning elections.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

no, the republicans aren't going to end the war. bush has veto power the dems can't override without their votes.

If the they weren't more interested in playing politics the Democrats would work with the president, send him a funding bill he'd be willing to sign, and before you knew it the they would have gained enough political capital to force Bush to begin staged withdrawals. They could say, "We want Iraqis to win this war, not us," and people would support them, myself included. Their cooperation would mean they were looking forward to a positive outcome at the end of the war. Unfortunately they don't give a damn what happens to Iraq in the end, and while Bush is still president every American soldier who dies guarantees their dominance in the next election. They're not in the business of saving lives, which is why this war won't end before 2009.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Mazer

If the they weren't more interested in playing politics the Democrats would work with the president, send him a funding bill he'd be willing to sign, and before you knew it the they would have gained enough political capital to force Bush to begin staged withdrawals. They could say, "We want Iraqis to win this war, not us," and people would support them, myself included. Their cooperation would mean they were looking forward to a positive outcome at the end of the war. Unfortunately they don't give a damn what happens to Iraq in the end, and while Bush is still president every American soldier who dies guarantees their dominance in the next election. They're not in the business of saving lives, which is why this war won't end before 2009.

you're already spreading the blame onto the democrats which serves to make my point. the democrats didn't begin the iraqi invasion. many voted bush the authority but only if truly needed. bush the comander in chief was the only one who could send in the troops and he did so under false pretense, thus abusing that authority. he can remove them from this iraqi civil war whenever he wants, but he won't and the republicans know it. the best they can hope for is to obscure the origin and dissolution of this republican morass and shift it onto democrats.

- js.

[Mazer]

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.