Submitted by Jan, Sep 4, 2007 10:21

I really think it hardly matters.

Iraq will make or break Bush, and I think the Democrats are ready to give him just enough rope to hang himself. I think they will pass Jim Webb's proposal, this time without a timeline, and the ball will then fully be in Bush's court.

He will have to start bringing the troops home by the spring, and what ensues after we begin to leave will be his failure.
Or he can send the troops back into Iraq without the military-mandated rest-and-training times, which is not a winning position either.

If you think Iraq will be a success by the time Bush leaves office, I think that means that the Democrats, after the 2008 election, will have a majority both in the House and the Senate, and they will probably also win the White House.

If, like me, you think Iraq will still be a failure by the time Bush leaves office, the Democrats will have landslides in both the House and the Senate, and the White House will be in their hands for at least a generation (especially if Republican Congresspeople like my Senator, John Sununu, keep rubberstamping Bush).

If Bush had embraced Baker-Hamilton after the 2006 Thumpin', he and the Republicans would be in much better shape. But he rolled the dice instead. So, I don't think Democrats need to say very much, if they pass Webb's proposal with 60-67 votes. If that happens, and I think it will, then we all watch the dice roll once again. And everything Bush has, he has riding on Iraq.

My prediction: Iraq represents a failed Bush policy, a failed policy supported by the GOP beyond the window of American voter support, and the Democrats will control government until 20/20... or so.

Bush has the bad of Richard Nixon, and not the good; and he has also has managed to have the bad of Lyndon Johnson, and not the good.
Bad, bad.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.