A lot of people say Bush is stubborn and refuses to change his mind on the war in Iraq. Maybe? Maybe not?
However, is Bush any more stubborn than the Democrats who "continue" to see Iraq as the "war that is lost"? Another Vietnam? A country that is mired civil war? Who continue to see absolutely "no political gains"? Who continue to ignore the near 80 percent drop in violence? Who fail to recognize that journalists and visitors can "now" walk the streets without any body armor or helmets in areas that were previously the most violent in Iraq? Who ignore the current revenue sharing of oil profits as step in unifying the country? Who ignore the importance of bring Baathists back into the government and into their former jobs as means of stabilizing the country?
Whether or not we should have gone into Iraq is a separate issue from "what should be done" in Iraq, today. We went into it because nearly 80 percent of the Senate said we could. And, of those Senators who voted "yea" to the war, nearly 60% of all the Senate Democrats agreed to the effort. On that basis, it was a bipartisan decision. To ignore the stability that is forming in this country is pure stubbornness. It is a lie to the people of this country and it is being downright deceitful. To place political gain above the reality on the ground in Iraq, verges on "high crimes and misdemeanors" by the Democrats; even treason. Truly an impeachable offense if only "they" were as constitutionally bound as the President of the United States!
In January of 2007, Senator Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi released a joint letter that they had just sent to President Bush. (Click to see press release.). In that letter, they declared that the "surge" wouldn't work because Iraq was in the midst of a civil war. Of course, this was "before" the surge had even started. On April 19, 2007, before we had added "even" a fourth of the additional troops needed for the surge, Harry Reid declared that surge isn't working and "the war is lost". (Click to see the full Story) When it was obvious, that the surge was working, the Democrats then said their was no political gains in Iraq; despite the surge. Now, with the political gains starting to show fruit, the Democrats are now using "spending" as the "latest" rationale for leaving Iraq.
This has been a "game" that has seen the Democrats moving the goal posts back, constantly out of reach, a total of four times. It is a "game" of politics to appeal to the Democrat's left-most base such as Moveon.Org. It is a game that must be played to insure that steady stream of campaign funding continues for that base. And, unlike Bush, their stubbornness is for pure political gain. Certainly, Bush's stubbornness has resulted in nothing but political losses: ie. the House and the Senate and, maybe, the Presidency in 2009. So, unlike the Democrats, you can either say his stubbornness is because of self-pride and foolishness or, just maybe, because he actually believes he is doing the right thing.
My guess is that the effectiveness of the surge will allow troops to be removed at some point in 2009 and will result in reduced spending for the War. So, as time marches on and the war costs start coming down, it will be interesting to see what excuse the Democrats come up with at the point where "spending" no longer becomes an issue. I am sure that their stubbornness will prevail and we'll see a SIXTH reason why we should be in Iraq. Of course, if Barack Obama is elected, they won't need an excuse. We'll get out because "he" didn't vote for the war and "not" what would be good for the long-term benefit of this country.