Iraq and 2008

Tom Delay has written an article on how the war in Iraq will play out against the 2008 election. Apparently Iraq is going to be a big problem - for Democrats.

Apparently Republicans are going to continue their policy of claiming that the emperor has clothes, they are beautiful, and anybody who says he doesn't have clothes is a filthy liar. Or to be more specific, they are going to say there is a war on terror against evil enemies and to back down in Iraq is to let them win. Only a traitor would want to pull out of Iraq.

There are a lot of traitors around, apparently.

On the other hand, if Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congress are successful in undermining the commander-in-chief (thereby emboldening the terrorists to kill more Americans in Iraq) and the media continues its relentless drumbeat of bad news, then Republican "win at all costs" rhetoric will be less attractive to voters tired of their sons dying halfway around the world.

Republicans really don't like Pelosi. I'm starting to think that maybe Republicans have a problem with strong women.

Anyway the current strategy seems simple enough; hope the surge pays off and if it does, declare the Democrats losers. Alternatively, say "Yeah our strategy doesn't seem to be working yet, but the Democrats don't have any strategy at all. What's worse a party that has a crappy strategy? Or a party that doesn't even want to face the problem at all?"

Of course for this to work, the American people have to remain in the dark about what Democrats are actually saying about Iraq and about fighting global terrorism. Why just a few days ago MoveOn.Org had an online town hall meeting about Iraq, in which each candidate was asked for his plan on Iraq. And surprisingly, none of them answered "Well Gosh. I don't really have a plan." I can understand Delay disagreeing with these plans; but to claim they don't exist, well, it's kind of a lie, isn't it Senator?