Lowell, what I think might be important, related to this as a political issue, is what you said and quoted Webb as saying in your eariler diary :

Webb believes that Al Qaeda "badly overplayed their hand before the...surge was announced."  But, according to Webb, all this is temporary, and won't necessarily help us long term.   We've also got a temporary period of calm because "Sadr, who is the most aligned with Iran, has cut, basically, a six-month deal here where he's looking at the Maliki government."  Regardless, the most dangerous places for terrorism right now aren't even in Iraq, they're in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  And then there's the volatile Kurish-Turkish situation in the north.   So, we have a "moment," given to us by the U.S. military, now "We need to take advantage of this in a regional way, not simply an Iraq way."

I hope that Democrats don't drop the ball (that they see the big picture, as Webb does, and that they don't get lost in the minutae).  

Webb is quite a thinker and speaker and a plus to Democrats!

That's the first question. The second, in terms of the 2008 elections, is how will they be affected if the relative Iraq "calm" remains through election day?  Finally, what happens after the "calm" explodes in a series of horrific car bombings, a war with Iran, or whatever?   And, of course, what are the political implications of whatever it is that happens -- or doesn't happen -- in 2008?  Stay tuned...

During the commercials for the Sunday news shows yesterday almost all of the ads had to do with energy independence/environemnt.  There were almost no defense contractor ads which was also interesting.

How many years now have we heard about energy independence and how many years have politicians done squat about it?  I'm sure we will hear about it.  I'm doubtful that anything meaningful will get done.  Unless we all miraculously by electric, fuel cell, or hybrid cars overnight, look to the Port of Southern Louisiana and Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) being the busiest ports in America.  Americans consume 20.7 million barrels of oil a day, and of that over half is imported.  Short of said miracle, we are going to be dependent for some time.

http://ap.google.com/article/A...

Iraq burns as an issue with me.  So does the economy.  And so does the reckless debt piled up by George Bush.  

According to this AP story:

The national debt - the total accumulation of annual budget deficits - is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.

That's $10,000,000,000,000.00, or one digit more than an odometer-style "national debt clock" near New York's Times Square can handle.

As we get more and more used to $3.00 a gallon gas, Iraq will continue to fade as the one important issue for a few reasons.

This country truly, in the aggragate, does not care about the casualties we suffer, much less the deaths of Iraqis.  Why?  Considering the percentage of the populace affected by deaths or mutilations of our troops, the number is insignificant.  This isn't Viet Nam or Okinawa, we're not seeing thousands of deaths in a short burst of time, events which make headlines.  We may get outraged over Walter Reed, that is WE, not Oshkosh or Aspen or Detroit.  In cities of 100,000, of which there are aplenty, events like Walter Reed get at the most a day's coverage, and that only a few lines.  And those few lines usually buried among K-Mart ads on page 8.  Do the numbers to see how few families are actually affected by our casualties; then you'll realize how little impact this war has on us.

The gas prices may kill Kansans, but they'll still vote on the issues that make rise RK readers' hackles--gay marriage, Elian Gonzalez, late term abortion--you know the litany.  They'll get used to $3.00 a gallon and take their sublimated fury out on the liberals, Barney Frank and that "shrill" Hillary.  The war's casualties will be buried as an issue.

The reason I believe this to be true is that the issue on the war is how we can win or stay even or withdraw.  Never on the morality of the war!  I read Russ Feingold's speech by Googling it last nite, the speech he gave to attempt to stop the 2002 war resolution, and I was struck again by its clarity, its indisputable correctness, both in logic and factual background.  It's easy to say "Why should we have believed him over Colin Powell [Mr. Rectitude personified], as well as the others."  The answers now, as then, are contained in Feingold's speech, and I, personally, could not believe the absolute spin and horseshit I was hearing later from the General during his U.N. speech.  And my wife couldn't believe my anger over Powell's lies, lies disputed by all the daily stories not only in the Washington Post but in Newsweek, Time, the N.Y. Times, CNN, and C-SPAN.  We should have had as our candidates for president some of the 23 senators who had the decency to vote against that foul resolution.

But, nobody cared then, so why should they now when we are used to gas prices, when the deaths aren't of ours, when our taxes are OK, when a mounting debt is not only not seen as a visible event but is not even reported in the overwhelming  majority of our newspapers: i.e., it doesn't exist.  The war may be an issue to some, but it's fading fast and the question of its morality has completely faded.  And that's what angers me the most because I believe the party that brought on this war should pay, bigtime, or else where is justice?  

Probably, this presidential election will be decided, as usual, on the likeability of the candidates, and right now it seems that the anti-evolutionist Huckabee and the vague but interesting Obama have the upper hand, both with the "mo."    

that it is clear and indisputable.  Everyone should read the speech, Why I Oppose Bush's Iraq War Resolution by Sen. Russ Feingold October 11, 2002.

Thanks soccerdem.

the media is beating this to death. every newsreader leads with the same story. Iraq not a top priority.
OH YES IT IS.
the only reason , thank god that more aren't being killed is because they no longer go out on patrol in their humvess. many soldiers have REFUSED to go out.
they are on their bases or holed up in the green zone.
so bring them home NOW.

From a political perspective, I have been concerned about the Democrats focusing too much on America getting out of Iraq immediately.  The Dems are committed to that position even though the Administration, the military, and the press will now make it look like the surge is "working" to calm things down.  Thus, the Democrats will look more extreme in demanding immediate pull-outs (as opposed to seemingly more moderate stances).  Even though most Americans want America out of Iraq, the more the surge "works" to keep things "calm," the less Americans will care about that issue.  

For the Republicans, the war/national security issue always works to their benefit.  If things are going well, they claim credit.  If things get worse, they get hawkish.  

I just hope the Bushies haven't outmanuevered the Dems on this one.  From a political perspective, smart Democrats need to view politics like smart investors view the stock market -- be very skeptical of where everyone else is heading, and consider tacking in the other direction.      

I think Beinart spends entirely too much time figuratively thumping his chest to be taken too seriously.

The decreased salience may only be among conservatives who think it's already their way or the highway.  Those cons who have their eyes wide open have gotten strangely quiet.  And the despair among them explains why the wild-eyed wild men (and women) of FOX have gotten more disgustingly aggressive and repressive than ever.  

To the extent that they ever did tune in, the rest of the voters won't forget (at least in 2008).  In 20012, they may have forgotten.  And then we may have a problem.  But then again, maybe not.  When the permanence of the mission in Iraq becomes clear and when tax dollars to support that mission are steadily threatening everything people hold dear (such things are already under really serious threat now--see Paul Krugman's latest column), maybe then they'll wake up.  

We have got to figure out how to break through admin revisionism so that the forgetful can't be fed the spoonful of SXXX that Bush re-writers of history are feeding em with.  

If Iraq stays relatively quiet and the housing market melts down in 2008, I have a feeling people will be focused on the latter not the former.  We'll see.

look for more people to spontaneously combust.  Because with that on top of the housing melt down (already in progress) and the economic consequences that has and will have, people will just explode.  That or more people will have nervous breakdowns.  Which if your playing the market should be good for gambling, alcohol, tobacco and firearms stocks.  Bearish on bank stocks, thank God we have the FDIC!

The market has only been up on expectations that the Fed will cut rates again.  If they do, the dollar will just further sink into the pits.  Despite the feds actions, interest rates are still up and there are a lot of mortgages that will reset next year.  Next year does not look good.  And if the Fed's answer to the credit crunch is to increase money supply and decrease its value, then at what point to we start to see rapid inflation?  We only seem to be saved now by the fact that China's currency does not float, and external to the fed we have a giant openly traded debt market.

And if the economic situation does get dire, I would think more people would want us out of Iraq immediately.  They would want us to stop spending billions on that in order to get our house in order.  Right?