[Alberta's Child]

My point is that you can't claim that the start of the war in March was a political start to ensure a win in 2004, and forget that the delay was caused by another attempt to appease the leftists.

Your responses to my assertion about the March start date actually reinforce my point. The administration origanally wanted to go into Iraq in 2002 -- for the exact same reasons I mentioned.

If you need further evidence of the role that the 2004 election is playing in this whole thing, just look at how adamant the Bush administration is about the June 30th transition date. There is no way in hell they want the U.S. military to be taking casualties to any great extent during the months leading up to the election.

[CSM]

You misunderstand the June 30 date. All that date will be is a handover of soveriegnty. We will still have troops on the ground, we will still be "running things". This act of soveriegnty with protection will allow the Iraqi's to write a full constitution, hold elections, set up a government, etc.

I have no expectation that there will be no further fighting after June 30. In fact, it may even increase as the insurgents see their last gasp opportunities.