Does an this bode well for BO and democrats?

What if Iraq is NOT an issue in fall???

Rice says US-Iraq coming together on timetables

U.S. and Iraq close to withdrawal deal AP

AP –U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, left, meets with Iraq's Prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, right, … BAGHDAD – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Thursday that U.S. and Iraqi officials agree that timetables should be set for a U.S. troop withdrawal, but conceded that nailing down a broader pact on future relations is difficult.

source

Aaron wrote:What if Iraq is NOT an issue in fall???

Rice says US-Iraq coming together on timetables

U.S. and Iraq close to withdrawal deal AP

AP –U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, left, meets with Iraq's Prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, right, … BAGHDAD – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Thursday that U.S. and Iraqi officials agree that timetables should be set for a U.S. troop withdrawal, but conceded that nailing down a broader pact on future relations is difficult.

source

That is absolutely bad news for B.O. and the Dems, Aaron. Tradition holds that Obama has been against the Iraq war since the beginning; therefore, for it to go well or 'worse' yet [good things are often bad things from a liberal Dem perspective ] for a state of victory to occur there is a bad thing since being against a war that turned out good isn't going to generate many votes.

About the only thing Obama can do in that event is spin it somehow or harp on how bad Afghanistan is.

perspective ] for a state of victory to occur there is a bad thing since being against a war that turned out good isn't going to generate many votes.

How, by any measure, could this five years and still counting unnecessary war, built on a mounds of hyped lies, costing 4000 plus American lives and tens of thousnds of American's injured- many of those permanent injuries- and untold numbers of Iraqi dead and injured, "turn out good"?

ziggy wrote:

perspective ] for a state of victory to occur there is a bad thing since being against a war that turned out good isn't going to generate many votes.

How, by any measure, could this five years and still counting unnecessary war, built on a mounds of hyped lies, costing 4000 plus American lives and tens of thousnds of American's injured- many of those permanent injuries- and untold numbers of Iraqi dead and injured, "turn out good"?

With a stable and reasonably democratic government in Iraq; gone is Saddam and the weapons he may or may not have had or what have you; gone is the corruption that surrounded him the UN and some of our Euro allies.

If you were for the war, politically, it's full of pluses, Zigmiester. The problem for Obama specifically and the Dems more generally, is that they totally bought into the narrative that says 'Bushs' war' is Evil and that nothing good could possibly come of it; more or less because Bush and his illicit band of Neocons sux and they are hated with the burning passion of thousand suns blah-blah, et cetera and ad nauseum.

Nationally, the vast majority of the electorate is way to the Right of both that narrative and the ideology behind it. Obama and Axelrod both know this so his only option will be to spin the good news and/or harp on how bad Afghanistan is. In a certain sense, the anti-war Left benefits from having two wars to be against; since if things start to go 'bad'/good in one war they can turn and say the other one is going to pot.

With a stable and reasonably democratic government in Iraq; ........................

There was already a stable government there. How "democratic" it was is and was none of our bisiness. Saddam's political killing's had already been done- years before- with America's blessing, and our weapons.

And how "democratic" is the government there today? If you're part of the wrong religious sect, it is not very "democratic" for you.

gone is Saddam and the weapons he may or may not have had or what have you;

Well, all the evidence was/is that by the time of the U.S. invasion, he did not have them. And some of us told you so at the time- that Bush and Powell were lying about WMDs- to have a bogus excuse for going to war against a sovereign nation. So, in that regard, what is the point?

gone is the corruption that surrounded him the UN and some of our Euro allies.

Oh really?

Good grief Brian you really believe the "vast majority" support the Iraq Occupation?