"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:43:17 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

If the insurgency and the civil
unrest in Iraq comes to a halt, and the country falls into a period of
democratic prosperity and peace, Bush will be hailed as a great President
and a world leader cut from the same cloth as Churchill and Eisenhower.
You
can't honestly expect any rational person to believe the left wants that.

David Brooks had a thoughtful column on that topic in today's times. He
says
essentially that there are two defensible positions. If you think the
situation in Iraq is inevitably going to deteriorate into permanent
sectarian violence, you don't want us in the middle, and you get the
troops
out as fast as possible. If you think there's a prospect of creating a
stable Iraq, then you back staying there until the job is finished. The
Dems
want to continue criticizing Bush but are unwilling to take responsibility
for saying they think the situation is hopeless and we should pull out, so
they cast about with their fingers in the air trying to come up with
something that sounds plausible. So far they have only persuaded people
that
they don't know what they're doing.


It's not as black and white as that. If it's going to (actually, the
Pentagon has already said) that it's basically a civil war, then we need to
withdraw as soon as possible without endangering more lives. Immediately
withdrawing is not an option and no one of any credibility on either side is
calling for that. They are calling for a timetable and requiring the Iraqis
to take control of their situation. If it's still possible to fix it, which
I and most analysists think, including those in the military, then we'll
soon find out.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com