Gotta look pretty to campaign

[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.

[Sinner]

I will quote a a professor at a major research university, a registered Democrat, a liberal by some measures, but a radical conservative relative to the large majority of his colleagues.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...zing-iraq.html

These foreign fighters are not "insurgents." Instead, they the al Qaeda terrorists who have been drawn to Iraq like flies. Al Qaeda uses precisely that method (suicide bombings), it is a terrorist organization (i.e., they indiscriminately target civilians), they have stated their intention to slaughter Shiites, they claim many of these spectacular bombings, and the U.S. military attributes almost all of them to al Qaeda. By contrast, there is not one shred of evidence that I have encountered to suggest that these mass-casualty suicide bombings are being carried out by Sunni Baathist insurgents as part of a civil war. Al Qaeda terrorists target Shiite civilians for indiscriminate slaughter because their whole plan to provoke civil war in Iraq, not because they are fighting in that civil war to defeat the Shiites. It's a good plan, not foreseen by anyone, and it has been working fairly well.

All of this brings me to the important point I'd like to re-emphasize today because of a new article that just came out in the prestigious Foreign Affairs magazine (which I'll get to shortly). What is critical to understand, and what even prominent thinkers cannot seem to assimilate, is that there is a distinction between two kinds of violence in Iraq:

1. Sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis as they seek to defeat each other (which can be reasonably construed as being part of a civil war)

2. The indiscriminate slaughter of Shiite civilians by al Qaeda suicide bombers as they seek to provoke Shiite-vs.-Sunni conflict (which cannot be reasonably construed as being part of a civil war)

As violence of the first kind has decreased of late (i.e., as the civil war has abated), violence of the second kind has increased significantly (i.e., efforts to re-ignite the civil war have ramped up). That's what the evidence shows, and those who are paying attention to the details know that. Those who aren't paying close attention, such as Harry Reid, just see confirmation that Iraq has descended into civil war. Yet Reid, who has never shown the slightest understanding of the role played by al Qaeda in Iraq, has the audacity to claim that Bush is in a state of denial.

Harry Reid fails to see what al Qaeda has been doing which is provoke a civil war and convince Americans the war is lost.