Winning in Iraq; losing the presidency

I posted a poll on my blog today. You'll find it in the upper-right corner. It asks if an American victory and withdrawal of troops from Iraq by 2008 damages the chances of a Democrat being elected president. Some may want me to define victory, but before I do, I want to remind you that there is a portion of the moonbats who would never recognise victory in any form. My definition would go like this: The present government maintains a stable democracy where rule of law is held in high esteem. Through law, insurgents, attempted coups and small scale invasions from Iran and Syria are promptly and strongly dealt with. It should also be noted that I don't think we'll be out of Iraq in 2008.

Iraq will probably, at least in my life, never be a pristine example of a democracy. Perhaps the best we can hope for is something like Pakistan. But that's a huge improvement on what was there six years ago.

Of course, most of the Dems voted to go to war. But then they discovered what a great weapon the war is against the Republican party. And they fully invested all of their rhetoric into defeat--because after the difficulties of dealing with the insurgency, they were sure we had lost. But we hadn't. Al-Qaeda, and you don't hear this much in the mainstream media, has been crushed. The worst defeat possible has befallen them: Rejection by the Muslim community. No longer is Al-Qaeda protected by frightened Muslims. These people want to live in peace, and they know that Al-Qaeda brings only death.