[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

I watched the debate last night between Virginia’s “Simple George,” and, “I am better at geography than you,” Jim Webb, and they didn’t exactly bring any bold new ideas about Iraq. George Allen wants to “stay the course” (because we all know how much he loves civil wars), and Webb wants to redeploy and solve this thing through diplomatic channels, calling Iraq’s neighbors into the negotiation mix and referencing the Iraq issue as a regional problem so to get support of the major players in Middle East for making Iraq a stable and safe place (or, in Republican-speak “cut and run”).

Well from a republican perspective-if the democrats were able to gain control of congress or at least made a case in which you can blame the democrats for pulling troops out of iraq(withdrawl, cut & run, redeploy-pick your word), and provides cover, and later you can do the "blame game" on democrats for creating whatever situation might develop on the ground in Iraq. And the democrats would counter that they received the situation long before. Funny-it's almost a situation in which it might be better for republicans to actually lose in November either the house or senate-not sure about both.
The picture seems to become clearer each passing day. Will Iraq be divided into 3 sections or will a full blown civil war develop which is supported by Iran in which the U.S. might be forced to go after Iran-I think the first scenario is much more acceptable to the american public then the second. At least with the first scenario the U.S. still might have a partner with the Kurds, and they do control the Oil although some type of agreement would need to be worked out, but when all sides start to look at $$$ they might come to some working agreement. Whew!