"Sens. Warner and Levin Travel to Iraq, Praise Surge Results"

As I said a couple weeks ago..

The surge *IS* working...

Michale.....

The American voters are royally pissed off at the Democrats for reneging on their promise to end the Iraq war...

The mentality I see for voters for the 2008 elections is,

"Well, frack! I can't seem to depend on the 'crats to actually END this stoopid war, so I might as well vote for the party that will at least be willing to FIGHT this damn war."

And that would be the GOP...

So, I agree with MG's assessment that we will see a GOP majority back in Congress in 2008 and a GOP president..

Of course, the GOP will try and portray this as a "mandate" when it probably won't be...

Michale.....

>Then come back and explain to me
>that you've discovered the difference.

In the context of our discussion, there is no difference between oxygen for a human being and oil for a national economy and security.

If a person is deprived of oxygen, they will die. If a nation as technologically advanced as the US is deprived of oil, that nation will die...

This country needs oil like a person needs oxygen.. And no one is willing to give up oil and oil based products.. Including you..

"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN

Michale.....

I'll recommend light sweet crude, fish seem to love it.

Funny how we rose to become the dominant species on this planet before we ever discovered oil, and now some people think we'll die without it.

I'll be in my garden, good luck.

CDub

I'll go an hour without using any petroleum products, and you go an hour without oxygen. Then come back and explain to me that you've discovered the difference.

Starting as soon as I turn off my computer, since it's got all sorts of petroleum dependencies.

>Oil is not oxygen.

Oil is as necessary to our nation's "health" than oxygen is to our own personal health.

"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."
-Spock

>Iraq is not the only place oil comes from.

Enough of it comes from there to make it our business as to what happens there..

>Saddam was not psychotic.

I'll let that bit o lunacy stand on it's own merit.. Or lack thereof...

>Saddam would have loved to supply more oil,
>but was prevented from doing so by the U.N.

Don't get me started on the idiocy and greed of the UN.. In that regard, the UN and Saddam are two of a kind..

>The war for oil had nothing to do with
>getting more oil, it was all about
>getting control of the oil supply so as
>to keep prices up, and control who gets
>the profits

And you can PROVE this, right?? Oh yea, that's right. I forgot.. You were absent the day they taught law at law school!"
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

Michale.....

The war for oil had nothing to do with getting more oil, it was all about getting control of the oil supply so as to keep prices up, and control who gets the profits.

"WELL NO DUH!!"

Postulate a Sci Fi scenario where you have a planet where all the world's oxygen comes from one region of the planet. Further postulate that that region is "owned" by a psychotic madman whose sadism and hatred are well known and well documented.

Now, are you going to castigate the country that goes in and eliminates said psychotic mad man and secures the oxygen supply??? Are you going to sit there and whine and cry and scream, "THIS WAR IS WRONG!!! IT'S ONLY FOR OXYGEN!!!!"

Tell you what.. Those of you who are against the war try living without ALL the things that oil gives us, for 1 week..

THEN come tell me how "wrong" this "Only For Oil" war is.. :^/

Michale.....

Yes, I am well aware of Bremer's 97 edicts (which you cite #17). What those edicts did was get our foot in door. However, once the Iraqi's took over as a government, all of Bremer's edicts were supposed to be "null and void".

The problem is that since we helped puppets get power, but not everyone in the Iraqi Parliament is a puppet, the edicts are in "no-mans" land. They aren't gone, but they aren't actually "the law". The reason for this is because the Iraqi Parliament was supposed to renegotiate all of the edicts, programs and policies that affected Iraq and the United States, but, they never did. Because the Iraqi gov't is in shambles, they have allowed the edicts to continue, as is, even though the edicts were supposed to no longer exist after the gov't took power.

I wouldn't expect too many Democratic primaries. The DLC has been working overtime trying to shut down all grassroots support for it (just look at how the DLC tried to snub Kos in the press). Kos has its problems, ie, "purity" problems. But, between blog sites like Kos and veterans groups like VoteVets, the DLC is running scared (scared they will lose their political gravy-train).

This is why I have said that our government is now an establishment all to themselves and the people be damned. Where else can you vote yourself a payraise every year, be given millions in cash to blow, have the best healthcare for free, and all you have to do is be a convincing liar?

More lively debate about this article can be found over at the Drudge Retort.

-CW

I'm sure you're aware of this. But do you know of any specifics regarding proposed Iraqi SOFA agreements?

Having a Democrat president and a Republican congress may not be a bad outcome for 2009 since 6 years of 'one party' rule is how we ended up in this current mess.

There is another possibility however. Democrat challengers may rise up to attack democratic incumbents using their recent voting records against them in an attempt to clean house, if you will

CDub

First, I love the whole "conspiracy" jab. Except Bush has all but admitted that oil *was* the reason we went into Iraq:

click
here

"CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields,, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists."

So, that the Iraq war was for oil is not a "theory", nor conspiracy, but fact, right out of Bush's mouth.

Second, Basra was a mess while the Brit's were there with all of their troops. As I've said before, I was in Iraq in 2006 just south of Basra. Think how safe the Green Zone is with all of our troops. Right. That was Basra, except worse. And, as you point out, as the Brit's leave, it is only going downhill.

Third, you have it partially right.

We will still be in Iraq in 2009, and beyond. Now that we have the bases (all we are waiting for is the puppets in the Iraqi Parliament to bow to pressure and give us SOFA agreements), no President (Democrat or Republican) is going to pull us out totally. Bush was already talking about the "Korea model" (50 year occupation), and Gen. Petraeus is already talking 9 or 10 years (which can only mean he is going to the low end only for it to be extended later, which the Republicans are famous for).

As for the elections, look for the Republicans to make gains in 2008. That's right; gains. Why you ask?

Simple. The Democrats were given the mandate to get us out of Iraq, instead, they fund the war with zero restrictions. They were given the mandate to stop Bush's illegal activities, instead, they give Bush more power.

This leaves voters few choices:

1) Vote for Democrats who have already shown how weak and useless they are.

2) Vote for Republicans who have already shown how corrupt and hypocritical they are while they destroyed our Constitution.

3) Vote for a 3rd party candidate who has zero chance of being elected, but the "statement" is made (protest vote).

4) Don't vote at all.

Only the "pure" base will vote for the Democrats and Republicans in 2008. Everyone else is either going to stay home or vote 3rd party. This favors the Republicans who gerrymandered districts.

The best we can hope for is we get a Democratic President when Congress goes back to the Republicans in 2008.

While Iraq will play some role in the 2008 elections, it will truly be about the Republican "do-nothing, corrupt, hypocritical, immoral" Congress vs Democratic "weak, capitulation, whiner" Congress. In other words, regardless of the state of Iraq in 2008, nobody is going to believe the Democratic candidates who say they're going to "do something" after the Democrats stabbed the voters in the back by capitulating and only the Republican base will look the other way after all of the corruption, gay Republicans, Republicans going to prison for rape/prostitution (solicitation), etc.

Our government, as envisioned by our founding fathers, is dead. All that is left is being nothing more than slaves to the corporations and government (ie, labor and taxes) until we get another nutcase in office who actually does bring about WWIII.