[Lexinom]

They will try to slant our progress, to be sure - notice that, with military success over the last several months, they pick on "political progress" - which will be properly accomplished at the town/clan level in a decentralized government. They can even demand a strong, highly-visible top-down central government which may never materialize giving them another basis for opposition.

This is a good thing. It means they have entrenched themselves in an all-or-none investment in defeat. The way things are going in Iraq, that bodes ill for them next year among regular Americans (they'll always have their kook base).

[Eyes Unclouded]

They won’t be happy until Iraq goes back to a paradise of children playing with kites. Or they win the white house.

[ModelBreaker]

This is a good thing. It means they have entrenched themselves in an all-or-none investment in defeat. The way things are going in Iraq, that bodes ill for them next year among regular Americans (they'll always have their kook base).

Tactically, perhaps, in a purely political sense. But for the nation, it is really bad to have one political party invested in America's defeat.

We need to find a way to let the Dems back down from this and pretend like they are entitled to some credit for the coming victory in Iraq. That invests them in the WOT. We will be fighting this war for 20-40 years and we cannot win with half the population opposed to victory.

There is a precedent for this. How many dems now claim they were right there with Ronnie winning the cold war? In fact, by 1972, the vast majority of the dems were actively campaigning for our defeat in the cold war. By the 80's, the dems opposition to winning the cold war reached a fever pitch.

If Jimmy Carter had been just a little less incompetent and won a second term, defeat in the Cold War would have been a very near thing. We were very lucky to win.