If this actually does come to pass, it will become obvious (to the observant) that Bush/Rove intentionally prolonged the war for the purpose of winning the 2008 elections.

I find it somewhat interesting that, at some level, winning the war by 2006 (obviously possible, given the success of the surge) was on the table as an option, and passed over.

In effect, they passed on Republican majorities in 2006 to cement the presidency in 2008. (Heck, absent Foleygate, they would have held on the majorities)

When all the books are written, Bush/Rove will be known as the most (seemingly) reckless risk-takers in recent history.
____

As an afterthought, there are benefits of losing majorities. Hastert, LaHood, and a whole slew of Republican graymeat is gone.

It might even become a decent party again.

OJ, Re. 03 comment. McCain puts it best "I'd rather lose the election than lose a war." paraphrased.

Bruno, any theories on who really destroyed the twin towers?

Bruno, that's nonsense.

40K did come home in '03. (From May 2003 to February 2004 US ground forces dropped from a peak of 149,000 to 108,000).

OJ,

Paraphrasing GK Chesterton....

"We did"

erp,

I can understand why you (and other reasonable people would think so), but I submit that it is not at all outside the realm of possibility.

While the scenario I posited above is probably somewhat overstated and over-simplified, the idea that the people who make up this extremely successful administration don't take politics into account is a lot closer to "nonsense" than anything I posted.

Just like a successful apprehension of bin Laden would have ended the WOT in an instant (we all want to get back to shopping, pampering our kids, and our 401(k)s - doncha know), so too would a rapid exit from Iraq ended the "successful" war party's control of the political agenda.

Churchill was out the moment the war ended, and Clinton won the first election after the definate conclusion of the Cold War.

We all want to get back to spending that "Peace dividend."

A idea that a historian of Rove's acumen wouldn't process these thoughts is absurd. The only barrier to believing I may have a point, therefore, is that we all cling to the belief that no one would put American soldiers in danger for political gain.

That may be the case, but if part of your strategy has been to import as many "jihadis" as possible into Iraq, for the purpose of being dispatched by the world's best military, timing their withdrawal for maximum political benefit isn't outside the realm of possibility.

Come the latter half of 2008, the narrative is going to be "We won a war the Dems have been trying to 'lose' for over 2 years, and now they are coming home with [some sort] of victory in hand."

It is either that, or a combination of dumb luck and incompetence. But even luck requires opportunity and preparation. Chance favors the prepared mind.

Bruno,
You say: "This is where we are, ergo, Bush manipulated world events to make history dance us to this point." It's a small step to say Bush brought down the twin towers, is it not?

The numbers don't matter, the announced victory and withdrawal does. Had he drawn down in '03 having won he'd have carried all 50.

Staying caused the war.

Bruno makes a number of logical errs.
here's one:

logic says: correlation does not imply causation. Bruno assumes that the 'surge' caused the impending 'victory'.

this may be true, but to assume a pre-2006 surge would have had the same effect is illogical.

no sale, Bruno.

No.

First, there is no place where I "say" any such thing.

I simply argue that politicians will manipulate what they can. Is that really a controversial statement?

It may be a an effective rhetorical trick to say that I believe Bush took down the towers, but I've not said that.

I don't think Bill Clinton blew up the Murrah building, but I do know that he used the event to paint his enemies as "the cause" based upon all the "hatred" they generate.

Indeed, the surge just happened to coincide with Mookie whacking enough Sunni to scare them into submission.

Jon and OJ,

Good points. I will take them into consideration.

Yet, nothing either of you wrote disproves that a "surge" may have worked earlier, NOR that policy decisions weren't made with domestic politics in mind.

When you think about it, the idea that domestic politics WEREN'T taken into account is patently absurd, even if my theory represents an overstatement or contains logical leaps not yet in evidence.

Indeed, it is OJ who has continuously said we would have been better off leaving after deposing Saddam. I tend to agree, and failure to do so was either a policy blunder or part of some greater plan/strategy.

A surge against what? Al Qaeda started recruiting on the basis of our staying and killing on the basis of our constraining the Shi'a. Had we not stayed there'd have been no need for a surge.

Bruno:
it is impossible to 'disprove' that an earlier surge would have failed

Bruno:
it is impossible to 'disprove' that an earlier surge would have succeeded

Bruno:

there is nothing I can say to disprove that an earlier surge would have succeeeded