I persist in believing that only Wes Clark can sucessfully-oppose McCain in '08.

One other candidate yet to be bandied is Chuck Hagel, the onliest GOPPER that has emerged himself from the Smegma Souffle that passes for GOP leadership, ANYWHERE in this Unknotted-States.

The war will be the deciding factor. If the surge is a flop (highly likely) AND McCain ends up the Republican standard bearer (I have my doubts), look for a GOP slaughter in 2008. If they nominate someone who can put forward a moderate Republican face and distance themselves from Bush (one of the current Govs mentioned or another dark horse), they could make gains, but I doubt retaking the house is in the picture after the fallout from this war. If a withdrawal occurs or of the Dems paint themselves into a corner by cutting off funds for the overall effort rather than just limiting the surge option or modifying the AUMF, the Dems could be in trouble.

As far as military strategy, KoZ, you might do well to read some yourself (and you might look up appeasement at some point and explan where that was ever a policy of the US). A war that undermines our nations credibility, exposes our limitations, and is incapable of achieving its stated objectives (the US military can never make another democracy legitimate or force a change in the way Iraqis think and act, it can only try to hold the situation together while we cross our fingers and hope the other things sort themselves out), is not in our nations interest, and only benefits our adversaries. Republicans wonder why there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9-11, I'd say Napoleon's observation is the key reason: Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. The war is a mistake and it has hurt us greatly, in terms of harm to our economy, our military, and our governments credibility both domestically and internationally. Why ruin that with another 9-11 that will unify the American people, bring more nations to our side, and lead to a re-focusing of our efforts on OBL? He's perfectly happy with how things are going right now.

For more lessons on military strategy, I can recommend you a few books. My personal favorite that I've referred numerous people to since the beginning of GWOT and the perils of agreesion in the name of defense came from the first book on military history, Thucydides History of the Pelloponesian War, specifically the Melian Dialogues. In their war with Sparta, the Athenians took to forcing neutrals to take sides and used their power and national defense as justification for conqueering minor powers, of which the Melians were one. In the end, this brought world opinion against them (most notably the continentals, who the Athenians were still writing off at this stage in the war), leading to their defeat, as the Melians predicted. It should be on everyone's reading list ho wants to talk about the virtues of an aggressive foreign policy:

Melians: But do you consider that there is no security in the policy which we indicate? For here again if you debar us from talking about justice and invite us to obey your interest, we also must explain ours, and try to persuade you, if the two happen to coincide. How can you avoid making enemies of all existing neutrals who shall look at case from it that one day or another you will attack them? And what is this but to make greater the enemies that you have already, and to force others to become so who would otherwise have never thought of it?

Athenians: Why, the fact is that continentals generally give us but little alarm; the liberty which they enjoy will long prevent their taking precautions against us; it is rather islanders like yourselves, outside our empire, and subjects smarting under the yoke, who would be the most likely to take a rash step and lead themselves and us into obvious danger.

Melians: Well then, if you risk so much to retain your empire, and your subjects to get rid of it, it were surely great baseness and cowardice in us who are still free not to try everything that can be tried, before submitting to your yoke.

Athenians: Not if you are well advised, the contest not being an equal one, with honour as the prize and shame as the penalty, but a question of self-preservation and of not resisting those who are far stronger than you are.

Melians: But we know that the fortune of war is sometimes more impartial than the disproportion of numbers might lead one to suppose; to submit is to give ourselves over to despair, while action still preserves for us a hope that we may stand erect.

Another reason to pay no attention to Kristol:

"The potential for Republican defection is a new thing. Conservatives have long recognized -- and worked hard to prevent -- the danger of a breakdown in party discipline. In 1993, William Kristol, then chairman of the Project for the Republican Future, orchestrated the defeat of the Clintons' health care plan. In an influential memo, Mr. Kristol wrote: "Any Republican urge to negotiate a 'least bad' compromise with the Democrats, and thereby gain momentary public credit for helping the president 'do something' about health care, should also be resisted. ...The plan should not be amended; it should be erased." Judging from the early days of this Congress, however, Republican solidarity has begun to erode."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/opinion/18edsall.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Gee, do ya think he might have one or two sour grapes when it comes to the current Congress?

Unless the Red Bushies stop the moronic War in Iraq, and stop trying to export US jobs overseas and give tax cuts to those who least need them, there will definitely be a second tidal wave - but this one will sweep both the Red House and the Senate clean as well. ----

Red Bushies - can't get them to listen - can't get them to stop hating America.

My Republican Representative won with under 50%, Mike Ferguson, NJ-7. Most striking was that in 2004 he won by about 15 pts. and in 2006 he won by 1.5%. Hopefully, he's a goner. Rahm Emanuel screwed up not funding the Democratic challenger here because Ferguson is very out of touch with the electorate on issues of stem cells, Social Security, abortion as well as the Iraq War.

Glad you like my little bit of prose, KOZ.

Are you trying to pretend that the Wolf came from Iraq on 9/11? Last time I checked, OBL is alive and well and laughing at us from somewhere along the Afganistan/Pakistan border.

Bush's response: take troops out of Afganistan. Do YOU think this is a good idea?

Do you not get the distinction between a murky threat in the bubbling cauldron of ethnic hatreds that is Iraq and the clear and present danger in Afganistan?

I don't have a clue where things will be in Iraq in 5 years; only a lunatic would say he knows exactly how things will turn out.

I have no doubt what will happen in Afganistan in 5 years if we don't support that government and finish the job there.

Signing off; good night, everyone.

gotta go sell more viagra to the masses....hasta la vista baby

Proudtobe they are as likely to kill each other now as they are to try to kill us. Heck, they are as likely to try to kill Al Queda foreigners as they are to try to kill us. Helping Maliki now is the same thing as helping Shiites kill Sunnis faster. How is that going to lead to a democracy?

I'm not saying totally withdraw the troops; that's where the 'control' comes from. Get them out of harm's way; the country is going to self-divide anyway. Help that part along just as we did in the Balkans. The latter provides a blueprint.

Absolutely none of this is a surprise. The sad part is throwing American lives away on the idea that democracy will work in a country that is politically unsuited to the concept.

Judge, fairly clever and original. Are you sure you are a moonbat, you don't seem to fit in here. but the "Wolf" did spring on the flock back on 9/11 and ate 3000 sheep. Where is he lurking now?

Why do you Dems pretend that didn't happen and it didn't change foreign policy away from appeasement and defensive measures into active offensive measures. do you not get this distinction? Not a lot of military scholars in the Dem fold are there?

So...you support Kucinich then judge? There will not be 'controlled blooming' if we leave now...flower and sheep analogies and liberal fantasies of world peace won't prevent hostile regimes from taking over what used to be Iraq and besides we'd only end up back there again.

George Washington had to knock heads with the do-nothing original Congress and was so fristrated at running a war with them looking over his shoulder and controlling the (non) funds.

After that experience, we learned that it takes a single individual to run a war. I have never had the displeasure of voting for (or against) Ted Kennedy and do not want him running our war. see how smart that first congress became? Ted Kennedy would be in jail if he wasn't from Mass. and had his last name. Just what are the requirements for office in that state.
A> you must be a serial drunk, letch, philanderer, cheat or adulterer
B> you must be able to change your positions on a moments notice to comply with political winds
C> Marry rich and one of the above

That pretty much covers all the Mass pols I know,Romney (see B above) included.

Proud: I did. "Let the Iraqi civil war bloom in some kind of controlled way, back the Kurds and direct events toward their inevitably Balkanized future."

And here's my response to Kristol. With all due apologies to the 'sheep' in this analogy.

The President Who Cried Wolf

There once was a shepherd President who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"

The villagers came running up the hill to help the President drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The President laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd President," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Unconcerned, he slept soundly as many members of the flock were slaughtered. This, of course, attracted more wolves from other countries which lead to more slaughtered sheep. At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd President hadn't returned to the village with the sheep they had entrusted to him. They went up the hill and found him grinning.

"There really was a wolf here! Many members of the flock has been killed! Although mistakes were made, give me MORE sheep to look after. That really is the only way to honor the sacrifice of the previous sheep. After all I AM the shepherd, and you should do exactly as I say. You cannot herd sheep by committee. I've made my decision. I'm not going to change my principles. And we're going forward. Failure is not an option and we've got to succeed. What is your plan?"

If it means more sheep are lost, would you want to wait to get rid of this incompetent shepherd President?

The point was that Peanut always instinctively reacts in the most anti-american fashion. as if he didn't do enough damage in his malaise. He wants to continue the downward spiral. Negotiating with N Korea and embarrassing Clinton, publishing fictional books, etc. How come Ford, Bush, Reagan and mostly clinton don't feel the need to still be engaged?Ummm because they aren't fools.

"Politically speaking, expedited failure is best for the GOP even if they don't know it yet."
Judge, how about at least trying a strategy that is good for the country's future interests and setting aside political expediency for a second...
e.g.:
"Today, Boneless Wonders sit on the benches of both parties in Congress. More are to be found on the Democratic side of the aisle than the Republican. But the herd of Boneless Wonders these days is a bipartisan one. Let's see if we can describe their thinking.

Say you're an average congressman. How do you react to President Bush's Iraq speech? You suspect, deep down, that he's probably doing more or less what he needs to do. We can't just click our heels and get out of Iraq--the consequences would be disastrous. And the current strategy isn't working. You have said so yourself. Last fall you called for replacing Rumsfeld. You've complained that there weren't enough troops. What's more, you've heard good things about General David Petraeus from colleagues with military expertise. So now Bush has fired Rumsfeld, put Petraeus in command, and sent in more troops. Maybe this new approach deserves a chance to work?

But, hey . . . look at

those polls! And those op-ed pages! You didn't come to Washington to support an unpopular president conducting an unpopular war. And the Bush administration is doing a crummy job of explaining this change in strategy. The path ahead in any case is going to be tough, and the new strategy might fail. Besides which, being for "escalation" sure doesn't sound good. Wasn't that a problem in Vietnam?

So you work on your talking points: You understand the president has a tough set of choices. You've got doubts about the path he's chosen. You've got lots of questions. But perhaps we should give it a chance . . .

But wait--that doesn't sound like leadership. That doesn't look decisive. And, if you're a Democrat--you didn't put in all that effort getting elected just so you could get a lot of grief from your own activists. If you're a Republican from a Democratic-leaning state--you didn't put in all those hours getting elected just so you could alienate the swing voters you need. So why not take the next step? Condemn the president's approach! There. That's a position.

But you're not just a talking head. You're a legislator. You need to vote. But on what? How about voting to disapprove of the president's "escalation"? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have come up with a nonbinding resolution opposing a troop increase. That's the ticket.

After all, you're not cutting off funds. You're not embracing any alternative policy. (God knows what it would be.) As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday, "I'm not the president. It is the president's obligation to set the policy."
What's your obligation? Certainly not to take responsibility for proposing a real alternative to the president's policy. No way.

Thus, the Boneless Wonders. There are honorable exceptions, and not just among those who support the war. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) reminded his colleagues last week that "Congress is a co-equal branch of government." He continued: "We have an urgent responsibility here. Congress under Article I, Section 8, has the war-making power. Congress appropriates funds for the war. Congress does not dispense with its obligation to the American people simply by opposing a troop surge in Iraq. It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war, yet continues to fund it. If you oppose the war, then don't vote to fund it." Logical. But naive and quixotic, in the eyes of the Boneless Wonders.

So the Boneless Wonders will push a nonbinding resolution to, as Joe Biden put it, "demonstrate to the president he's on his own." Sure, the resolution will weaken the president's hand abroad--but that's not their problem. It will lessen the chances of success in Iraq--but that's above their pay grade. It will dispirit friends and embolden enemies--but maybe there won't be much attention paid overseas to some non-binding congressional resolution. It will send the message to the soldiers fighting in Iraq that help is not on the way--that there are no reinforcements. That's unfortunate. But, hey--they volunteered.

And how about Sen. Obama on the Today show? "We're not going to babysit a civil war." To serious people that sounds

juvenile. To most of his colleagues, it's a good soundbite.

It's a demoralizing and revolting spectacle.

Meet the spineless members of Congress.
by William Kristol
01/22/2007, Volume 012, Issue 18

'If we have to suffer Carter drooling on Larry King'

drooling? you shoulda been around for reagan... now there was a drooler.

At: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=119732

"One day, in the fall of '87, my secretary...gives me a letter with a Georgia return address reading 'Jimmy Carter.'...It was the original copy of the letter Bartesch's daughter sent to Carter, after Bartash (sic) had already been deported.

"In the letter, she claimed we were un-American, only after vengeance...

"On the upper corner of the letter was a note signed by Jimmy Carter saying that in cases such as this, he wanted 'special consideration for the family for humanitarian reasons.'

"I didn't respond to the letter - the case was already over and he was out of the country - but it always stuck in my craw. A former president who didn't do what I would expect him to do - with a full staff at his disposal - to find out the facts before he took up the side of this person."

Apparently it didn't stick in his craw that he didn't bother to find out what "special consideration for the family" actually meant!

Maybe he could have educated Carter (or Carter's staff) on the facts of the case. In deporting Bartesch, he would have had the best facts available.

If we have to suffer Carter drooling on Larry King and prattling on about "aparthied" in Palestine then he's fair game. At least his staffers know when to quit.

If you publish fiction and then tour around pretending it is fact, you deserve to be challenged. even if you are "challenged". I will lay off if he will shut up. didn't the worst election outcome in history send any sort of message to Peanut. the meassge was - go back to plains and enjoy a quiet retirement. Maybe his tin foil hat is loose.

Agreed, JimD. Like it or not, at this juncture, Obama would do wonders for the D's chances in Congress in 2008.

KOZ, is that the best you can do? Beat up on poor old Jimmy Carter? He's 82, let him drift into irrelevancy in peace. We should all have half his smarts when we are 82.

FH and proudtobe, where are you?

"A former U.S. Justice Department official disclosed to Arutz-7 that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's advocacy extended beyond the Palestinians, when he interceded on behalf of a Nazi SS man. "

I am not surprised in the least. Maybe he will move to Palestein.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=119732

Oh, and Froomkin asks the right questions: "Yet what if success is no longer an option in Iraq -- then what are the three options really? Slow failure, expedited failure, and colossal failure? And which of those three is best?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Politically speaking, expedited failure is best for the GOP even if they don't know it yet. Get this debacle over with, stop the pointless death of even more Americans and by 2008 the GOP will have some kind of better future to run on. Let the Iraqi civil war bloom in some kind of controlled way, back the Kurds and direct events toward their inevitably Balkanized future.

Unfortunately, Bush has chosen slow failure. Peter Principle's envisioned bloodbath for the GOP in the Senate seems highly likely.

A major influence on the House races will be the identity of the two presidential candidates. Should the Democrats nominate someone like Hillary Clinton, she might win but her candidacy would make life very difficult for freshman Democrats in historically Republican districts. I am beginning to think that any Dem will be able to add one or two to the states Gore and Kerry won. But, the right Dem could add a lot of states in the West, mid-West and even some border states. Senator Clinton is not that Democrat.

The "pullout" of combat troops in VietNam was announced in July 1969. It began quickly thereafter and if some of the regular posters are correct, was essentially complete in 1972 (approx. 36 months).

This Administration is still pursuing the elusive "Victory." The 2008 elections are now 22 months away, and we're nowhere near even doing a lesser "pull back."

You have to believe that barring a marked shift in the Administration's policies, that Republicans are most likely to feel the public's frustration again in 2008. That is, unless the Democrats are foolish enough to do something stupid and let the Administration paint Iraq as their war also.

As CC says, "these numbers don't tell the whole story." Depressing that he doesn't acknowledge the elephant in the room: all R's chances will be hurt by Iraq and Bush's inability to do more than just "stay the course" in various ways. The question that his defenders ask now - "what's YOUR plan?" - is the same question that will be put to all of the candidates.

For D's it won't be much of an issue. For R's it ignites a moral dilemma: which side of my party do I support? Or will the GOP be so scalded by Iraq that no R candidate will support the war in 2008? What will that do to candidates who did support the war in 2006?

A better political analysis would include parallels to the post-Vietnam era and spend some time examining that history.

As long as Commander Clueless continues to escalate in Iraq, I wouldn't rule out the possiblity that 2008 could be yet another "wave" election -- maybe not enough to produce additional big gains in the Democratic House majority, but enough to counteract any natural tendency for the Republicans to win back seats they shouldn't have lost in the first place (i.e. Lampson's seat in Texas, Tim Mahoney's in Fla.)

If independent voters are still royally pissed off about the war in Iraq, and the Dems don't commit electoral harikari by nominating Hillary, I don't think a 5-10 seat pickup by the Dems is out of the question. And the Senate could be a GOP bloodbath.