Responding to comments

I was going to post more of this today, anyway. So for a jumping off point, why not address the comments made by William Stewart (who, by the way, is Executive Assistant to West Virginia Senate Minority Leader Vic Sprouse. I get quite the clientele to comment here.):

So you are faulting [Bush] for not flip flopping like Kerry and Hillary? Come on, do you really expect him to suddenly start yacking like Cindy Sheehan?

There is nothing more to be said. We'll leave when the job is finished.

First off, for Bush to change his position on Iraq and come up with a better plan that "fingers crossed, hoping for the best" would not be a "flip-flop." Admitting poor policy and working to change things for the better for America is not a "flip flop", either. It's called leadership. And it's something that I think we've been lacking in Iraq from Bush in the last year or so. So I'm not "faulting Bush for not flip flopping," but rather I'm faulting him for not finding a newer and better policy nor working once again to unite the country behind his war.

But I certainly never expected to her Sheehan's voice from Bush's mouth.

Now, I'm on the side that thinks Bush will keep us there until at least 2008, when the situation in Iraq will lead to party dominance in elections here in America. If Bush and his side are right, and the constant attacks and car bombs are a sign of a weakinging insurgency, then the GOP leads. If not, and we are still bogged down in the same position we are in now, then the Democrats will take control of the House, Senate, and Presidency in one fell swoop.

But the problem that will arise around that time is that the amount of bodies we can send to Iraq will become limited. Reports I've seen say that in two or three years, we will be unable to stay the course simply because we will run out of troops. Then we will begin the withdraw not because we reign victorious, but because reality has taken over. And I'm reasonably sure the insurgency knows this too.

Certainly by then we can hope for higher numbers of self sufficient Iraqi forces. But without them, withdraw from Iraq will occur whether it's the right thing to do or not. Iraqi's will be forced to take charge, and this argument will be render moot.

Bush, for now, seems content to wait it out in Iraq and hope for things to improve, even as the number of deaths from insurgent attacks grow.. And as the New York Times notes, the President, according to advisors, "is adamantly committed to holding tough in Iraq, even if it means disregarding the domestic political repercussions and pressure from his own party." I would also take that to mean that President will hold tough regardless of the actual reports from the ground.

And so if it takes a "flip-flop" to bring the President around, then I'm all for it.

*UPDATE* I should have pointed to this TIME article that suggests the President is wrong in some of his assertions. And I would ask Mr. Stewart (if he returns) what would be considered a "finished job" in Iraq.