Reply #70: Political parties will always put their own welfare first ...

[Martin Eden]

... and there is something to be said for not saddling the Democratic Party with the Iraq disaster if it results in revitalized electoral success for Republicans.

Another mitigating factor is that the US is responsible for the disaster our government created in Iraq. Somewhere amid all the bad options is a plan for withdrawal that leaves Iraq with the best prospects for minimal post-occupation bloodshed. This would likely entail genuine diplomacy and a substantial change in US foreign policy in the region -- things that won't happen while Bush is president.

It will take a Democratic president to be responsible and engineer a best scenario withdrawal. Whether or not the potential for better long term results outweighs the lives lost waiting for a Dem president is a very difficult question that is further complicated by the possibility that a policy of responsible and rapid withdrawal might not be followed.

I can understand the desire to GET OUT ASAP based on the likelihood that no better results will be achieved -- only a steady drain of American blood and treasure as long as we stay. I'm pretty much there myself.

I'm just trying to understand the motivations of the national Democratic leadership and paint a scenario that makes sense. I think I'm correct about the aversion to the huge political risk associated with forcing a withdrawal by defunding, but I may be giving them too much credit in regards to intent and/or a realistic plan for responsible and rapid withdrawal under a Democratic president.