The Democrat gamble

Even John Warner agrees that if we chopper out of Iraq before it's stable we risk losing the GWoT. Yet the majority of Democrats who've announced their run for the Presidency have left the impression they're perfectly willing to risk it, since we've heard no counter strategy or sensible exit strategies. And that seems to be OK with a lot of people.

The current President is now ensconced in his media room practicing the 2007 SOTU speech while outside more and more sharks circle in the moat. For gosh sakes, even Hugh Hewitt recently questioned the Republican Party's grip on national security, and Bob Woodward's quote about Bush being left with only Laura and Barney suddenly looks like more than a joke. The WaPo wasn't afraid to put some perspective on it:

More broadly, Bush will be speaking on Tuesday night to a nation that is deeply pessimistic, with just 26 percent of Americans saying the country is heading in the right direction and 71 percent saying the country is seriously off track. That is the worst these ratings have been in more than a decade.

Pretty bad numbers, but wait.. "more than a decade"? How much more? Was it during the 90s? Turns out it was. But a cheap Clinton shot is about all the goodness that can be squeezed out of the GOP rock at the moment.

The reality is that unless a 180 occurs soon (and it's highly unlikely this speech will turn the boat) George W. Bush will probably be remembered as a less than mediocre president entirely due to Iraq--more specifically his failure to anticipate Saddam's insurgency counterattack. America is currently drifting back into her post-attack sense of invulnerability, which further hurts the case for staying.

The Butcher might be dead but he'll go out a winner if we lose Iraq. That stark eventuality should warrant some serious policy discussion from the new Congressional leadership in between their symbolic non-binding resolutions. After all, most of them have experience with binding resolutions, don't they?