My view on Iraq, sadly proven to be correct, has long been that the situation isn't going to solve itself, that Bush isn't going to draw down troops, and that we will be there until there is sufficient leadership to get us out. There was never much that Democrats out of power could do about that, and there isn't much more that Democrats in power will be able to do. It's been sad watching this whole affair play out over the years, knowing that for some reason political elites really seemed to believe that one or two F.U.'s away things would be better, that it was inevitable that Bush would start bringing troops home before the 2004... then 2006... election... that James Baker would somehow provide the leadership that most of them weren't willing to provide which would somehow fix stuff.
I fear the 2008 presidential election will play out similarly to the 2004 one. Prominent Democratic candidates will imagine they look "tough" on national security by continuing to essentially support our continuing presence in Iraq. Since Iraq will be the central campaign issue in 2008, no matter how many spider holes of denial some retreat into, the Democratic primary battle will once again be between Very Serious People who won't be pushing for an exit from Iraq, and Dirty Fucking Hippies Who Know Nothing who will be pushing for such an exit.
I don't quite know how it'll play out on the Republican side - probably mostly a battle over who can hate teh gay the most - but I'm not optimistic about it being especially fun on our side.
