[sailaway21]

Let's talk some politics.
Petraeus did about as good a job on the Dems in congress as Ollie North did back in the day. The end result of it all is the General is sayin', "see ya in six months". Which means he's got the green light to continue the surge and his counter insurgent warfare until then in the manner he sees fit.

Which means you're not going to see ANY massive troop withdrawals from Iraq until .....? That's right, until after the '08 election, ie...Jan 20, 2009.

No major policy changes or troop withdrawals are going to happen in the spring iof an election year, unless GW Bush decides to make them. The congress is certainly not going to get involved so close to an election.

So what? I'll tell you why, so what? If, as fervently hoped for by some, we are to re-enter the glories of the Clinton era again in '09, the war becomes a Democrat war. It becomes a Democrat war because only a Republican president can pull the troops out and still appear not to be cutting and running, or strong on defense. If Hillary, or any other Dem, attempts to implement massive withdrawals in '09 it will be playing right to image as a soft Dem. So they can't do it.

All of the stridency for immediate withdrawal evaporates on 20 January 2009, if a Dem is elected. That is why it is so important to hammer GW Bush over this now. The retreat must be seen as a Republican retreat or no retreat is possible.

SanderO is going to be seriously bummed by this analysis, although no more than MoveOn.org will be. While I'm thinking about SanderO, it seems to me he is rather concerned about Rep sex scandals. Was it not the position of like minded thinkers that these sexual matters were private? At least that is what used to pass for liberal thought on the matter when the president was a philanderer.