[pbleighton]

What do you think it will be?

Do you think the party can afford to go into the 2008 elections with large numbers of troops still in Iraq?

Personally, I think "cut and walk" will be the choice...

So much more dignified than "cut and run", don't you think?

Peter

[Winstonm]

It is a no-win situation for Rebublicans - they have the blame for getting us in and the credit for getting us out will go to the Democrats.

The only real chance the Rebublican party has is to stay the course without appearing to stay the course and make the Democrats seem impotent to create significant change.

I'm betting that for Republicans it will be "every man for himself" and each will be trying to make him/herself look good on this issue to his or her electorate.

[luke warm]

you guys act as if us being in iraq was a one party decision... hell, even kerry was honest enough to say he voted both for and against the war, at the same time and in the same way... i don't need no stinking law of non-contradiction

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Nov 12 2006, 09:13 PM, said:

you guys act as if us being in iraq was a one party decision... hell, even kerry was honest enough to say he voted both for and against the war, at the same time and in the same way... i don't need no stinking law of non-contradiction

If so I didn't mean to appear that way. I am fully aware of the bipartisan nature of the votes, yet at the same time I am fully aware that it was Bush/Powell who provided the fodder and supposed evidence to initiate the conflict - and I was as fooled as they as I originally believed the claims and supported the war and the reasons. But when what appears to be the truth started leaking out via the Downing Street Memo and other such items that the entire threat was created out of wholecloth to support a previous agenda my support turned to anger at being deceived. As more and more information is leaked it seems there was absolutely no motivation whatsoever for the invasion - if it can be proved that the invasion and subsequent war was instigated by purposeful deception the President should not only be impeached but stand trial for war crimes as well as any others who participated in the deceit. And party affiliation has nothing to do with it - if a democrat or republican colluded he or she should be held to the same standards.

Quite a turnaruond from initial support, wouldn't you say? And I bet I'm not the only one who has these same feelings. (An MSNBC Non-scientific call-in poll question found 87% of respondents believed Bush should be impeached.)

At the same time, to be duped by the President into going to war whether on faulty intel or deception was not the fault of the Democrats who supported the efforts - and not having control of the investigative chairs of oversight is not the Democrats fault. So if there is fault, it is more properly laid at the feet of the Republicans who held control of both the White House and the Congress.

It seems the American people hold Bush accountable even if Congress does not and Bush is for the time being leader of that party.

I was only trying to answer Peter's quesiton of what will the Repubs do....

[pbleighton]

"I was only trying to answer Phil's question of what will the Repubs do...."

That's Peter, actually

My question was political as well as policy. The Republicans made hay on Iraq in 2002 and 2004, then got absolutely whacked this year. "What should A do now?" is an interesting question for political junkies such as myself, regardless of political leanings.

"Cut and walk" is a stupid, half-assed course of action, with no realistic chance of success (if the prersent level of troops aren't holding Iraq together, then gradually reducing them sure won't), but one which is fairly likely to be embraced by the Republicans.

Also by the Democrats, but that's a different thread

Peter