DEMS TAKE WHITE HOUSE IN 2008 IF . . .

. . . our troops are still in Iraq (with no real, meaningful change) and the Democratic nominee promises to bring them back if she (or he) wins. It is that simple in my opinion.

However, to ensure this result, the existing Congress, or at least the Dems have to allow the troops to stay in Iraq; while simultaneously shouting that we need to start bringing the troops home. One way to do this is to propose spending legislation that is filled with unrelated junk; and therefore, has no chance of passing or surviving a veto.

[This all presumes that Big Business Bush continues to fail, which seems a safe bet at this point.]

In fact, it is to the Dems' benefit (with respect to taking the White House) that the troops are not on their way home and that no time table has been set before the election. If the troops are coming home before the election, then numerous variables come into play that could make our country much more neutral with respect to the issue of Iraq.

For instance, if the troops are coming home (by the means of a gradual pull out), then what impact would a full scale civil war (in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are sure to die) have on our view towards Iraq? Would people be more inclined to permit our troops to stay if domestic killings drastically increased by tenfold during this pull out? If so, then a Republican Senator from Arizona might just get the winning vote.

What if the violence not only drastically increased, as our troops started coming home, but other countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia got involved in the mess? After all, the Saudis have suggested that they will back the Sunnis if needed.

That is why I say that it is to the Dems' benefit that the troops are not on their way home and that no time table has been set before the election. It is my view that before the 2008 Presidential Election the Dems will huff and puff, but will not blow any doors down that effect any meaningful change.


P.S. It is really very odd (and demonstrates just how poorly Bush and his nit wits planned out this war) that at the beginning of the Iraq war, the USA supported the Shiites, as they were generally oppressed, killed under Saddam.

However, given that Iran is predominately controlled by Shiites, now the USA, Saudis, etc., are concerned that the Shiites are getting too powerful (in Iraq?); and this might somehow lend itself to the Iraqi Shiites becoming more like, or uniting with the Iranian Shiites.

This sounds all too familiar. I remember how the USA supported Saddam against Iran because our government was very concerned that the Islamic extremism spreading throughout Iran might just spread to the entire Middle East. See Iranian Revolution (also know as the "Islamic Revolution") for more information.

So how did we go about addressing this concern? We supported the Sunnis and Saddam as he invaded Iran in 1980 (you know, about a year after the Iran hostage crisis began).

It does seem to be true that history has the habit of repeating itself. Especially when a nit wit like Big Business Bush is in office.