For starters, who told you that the elections was an “acceptance of defeat” on the part of the American people? Could it possibly be a feeling of revulsion against gross incompetence?

More and more Americans were actually more fed up with the incompetence with which this war has been waged, the absolute failure of the Iraqi leadership and Bush’s failure to hold the Iraqi pols to account. What is happening today is sectarian bloodshed with interference from terrorists from all over the ME.

If there is no WMD, why should the US troops be in Iraq caught in the civil war between two warring groups? This is a legitimate question.

A.We could either say that we are staying here because we were responsible for starting this mess in the first place and there fore we clean it up.

B.Or, we could admit that pulling out immediately or in 08 or when ever without having restored order in Iraq is at least a semi defeat.

Option A is the better one but it is also the toughest – with out the co-operation of Iraqi’s it is not going to happen. From what we have seen their political leadership has failed even worse than Bush, if thats even possible. How do we get the Iraqi pols to start governin ? Actually we cant – since we have to “stay the course”

Option B is bad but it looks like the most likely thing to happen, thanks to the competency level of the Bush Administration.

Why are you blaming the opposition party when you dont have the guts to say that this was a mess ENTIRELY created by the GOP? Hmm… may be you are feeling guilty ?

HA, why dont you petition your Congressman to ask for troop withdrawal since you claim that this is what Americans want. Posting to blogs which your Congressman does not read is not helping.

HA, people like you are the reason the GOP lost its bearings.

If America is not going to fight to win in Iraq, then there is no legitimate reason whatsoever to delay our defeat any longer than is necessary for the military to organize an orderly retreat.

I support staying in Iraq as long as necessary. But my side lost the debate in this election, and America has chosen to accept defeat in Iraq. The Democrats won a mandate for American defeat and the power to deliver it, and now they have a DUTY to the American people and the troops to follow through on their mandate as soon as possible in order to minimize the loss of American lives in Iraq. Furthermore, they have a DUTY to enact their policy on the first day the gavel drops in the new Congress so that America can fully understand the consequences of the Democrat policy going in to the 2008 election cycle.

Needless to say, I think this will be a disaster for America and the world. I also think the Democrat leadership knows this. That is why I think they will delay our withdrawal until as close as possible to the 2008 primary season. They do not want to America to understand the consequences of withdrawal until after the 2008 election.

Every single day after the opening day of the new Congress that the Democrats fail to enact their mandate by cutting of funding of the war will be a day where Americans get killed for a lost cause. I can’t think of any legitimate reason to stall our defeat other than for Democrats to gain political advantage in the next election. If you CAN offer a legitimate alternative explanation, I’d love to hear it.

I actually think Rep/ moderate unease at Dems losing in Iraq, and predicting that the Dems will lose, act as sort of a self-negating prophecy.

Sort of like Dems predicting Bush would tap all domestic phone calls — of course, now it will be Dems who tell him to do so…

As of January, the Democrats will have the power to end the war that they ran against. If they fail to do so, it is for the sole purpose of maintaining their electoral viability for 2008.

The goal of the Democrats is to lose the war. But they won’t do it in January of 2007 because that would be an act of political suicide. Instead, they will consciously send Americans to get killed in a war they fully intend to lose for as long as necessary to preserve their electoral viability.

Every American who gets killed in Iraq between January of 2007 and the time the Democrats actually fulfill their goal of losing the war is nothing less than a victim of politically-motivated, pre-mediated murder.

You little wimps really can’t stand to face your own failures and the depth of the catastrophe that Bush created in Iraq, can you? Is it cowardice or stupidity that drives you ?

The Dems in power has this huge silver lining for the Reps — the war in Iraq will now become a Democrat Party war, too.

We’re all “chicken hawks” now.

The Democrats ran either against the war, or Bush’s conduct of it. By doing so, they have gained the power to end the war by cutting off funding. Furthermore, they have created an expectation among their left-wing supporters that they will end it.

The dilemna for the Democrats is that if they end the war, they will create a catastrophe for the nation and the world. While the Democrat leadership is fully conscious of this fact, most of their supporters on the center-left are not. However, the Demcorats and their media cronies will no longer be able to suppress the disasterous consequences of their anti-war policy once they lost it.

So here is my prediction. The Democrats will not end the war until as late as possible before the primary season in 2008. If they fail to end the war by then, they will lose primary challenges to the Ned Lamonts of the world. If they do it any sooner than that, the full consequences of their policy will be manifested before the 2008 general election and they will sacrifice their electoral viability.

So, Marc, this war will not be ending any time soon. The Democrats will instead keep American troops “stuck in Iraq” to get killed as long as possible in order to maintain their electoral viability for 2008.

Yes, the Democrats are that repugnant. You are not foolish enough to believe otherwise, are you?

I love how the “democracy in the Middle East crowd” are more than happy, when their failure has turned an entire country into an open wound, to switch the argument to “let’s use Iraq as the killing field, now that we’ve screwed the pooch, so they don’t come after us”. Nice folks. The most bizarre aspect of this argument is the notion that somehow while we’re stuck in Iraq, it protects us from domestic attacks. That’s batshit crazy, of course. Might explain why the effort to protect ports and such has been so lame. Their ability to think strategically is drawn from partisan hype, simplistic slogans and the kind of reductionist analysis one usually finds in Powerpoint presentations. But what else is new with this crew ? And if Al Qaeda is celebrating anything, it’s that Bush has handed them an opportunity to humiliate the U.S. on a silver platter.

(I love it when these morons assume that the best U.S. strategy is dictated by responding to Al Qaeda PR.)

i still say the big surprise these next two years will be pelosi marginalizing the anti war left wing of the dem party. she and reid have bigger fish to fry–the white house where all the real power lies. by 08 the dems will have had the white house only 12 of the last 40 years. she will, with broad dem approval under the cover of night support bush in iraq, iran etc. yes, you can be sure that there will be a lot of hearings and paper shuffling but at its core the mission will be unchanged. the MSM will tout this supposed new direction with complimenting stories out of iraq etc. usa today already started yesterday with the blurb on afghanistan–more to follow when necessary.

it will be a modern redux of nixon taking over from LBJ. nixon ran on the same program–end the war–he did, 7 years later! as the anti war left jumps up and down pelosi will bitch slap them as they prepare for the clinton white house. if clinton wins the white house then i think the gloves will come off. until then there will be a constant flow of feel good bills that will be passed with the consent of many repub senators and reps. a wolf in sheep’s clothing will be the dem’s MO. many repubs will go along with this dem charade as they think career first, state and country second and third.

nancy’s timetable will be approximately two years, subject to a woman’s right to change her mind. already a lot of the leading dems have made a point of saying there is no timetable. the anti war crowd will be treated just like the black electorate–as the help.

I still have no idea what the term means ….

Very good comment, Marc. “Reployment” is Orwellian doublespeak for the U.S. lost in Iraq.
When you “reploy” troops you withdraw than froma battle/war you’re losing. Bush has completely lost the Iraq War.

It’s up to somebody to come
up with an exit stategy. The Baker group (old
retainers of Bush senior) seem to be devising
an exit strategy. They’re diplomats, and want
to involve Syria and Iran. A traditional
way to end a war is to have a peace conference
where you get all involved parties there. I’m
not endorsing the Baker group who haven’t
announced any strategy. I’m merely say they
have announced they will try diplomacy by involving Iran and Syria.

Look at the way the Vietnam ended. The U.s.
and North Vietnam had talks for year where
precious little was said. Finally, they got down
to business, had serious talks, and then U.S.
withdraw troops.

I was being sarcastic. I doubt the neocons can even grasp the concept of democracy. Note how fast they announced to the Nicaraguans that they would withhold aid if Ortega deviated from US directives.