[Ace's Dad]

The Democrats recaptured the House and Senate in the 2006 election in large part because of the growing opposition to the war in Iraq.

I've always thought that the reason the Dims won was because we were not winning the war, at that time, and many in the GOP didn't really give it their best shot, given the lack of progress in the war. The fact that Rumsfield was fired helps prove my point. He was not fired for losing, but for not winning.

[tomnbeverly]

Blah, Blah Liberal rag,.. Just like Rush said the Democrats are going to start to try and take credit for the surge in Iraq.. This is the strategy now... They have rationalized that the surge worked and took hold and that political reconciliation and real progress is going to come fairly quickly so they will not be able to run from it. They are going to try and Paint the picture that Bush and the Republicans really don’t know what they want to do in Iraq and the Democrats will come up with some magic answer and claim that all along this is what they supported and not what Bush did...

It is so transparent and yep millions of Americans will fall for it..

[wastedyears]

Let’s redeploy them to Iran.

[PGalt]

Thanks for posting. The Democrats (John “I Have a Plan” Kerry) never had a plan, do not have a plan now, and will not have a plan in the future. Recall how they treated General Patraeus. They are deceivers. Fred Kaplan can only offer excuses.

[mdittmar]

I've seen some stupid articles in my life,but this one takes the cake;)

"Congress, by nature, cannot deal with issues on this level. Only a president can. And this one isn't."

[Nuc1]

The Democrats recaptured the House and Senate in the 2006 election in large part because of the growing opposition to the war in Iraq.

Nonsense. Pubbies acting like dims cost the pubbies the election. Nothing more nothing less.

[VOA]

bump

[technomage]

The Democrats recaptured the House and Senate in the 2006 election in large part because of the growing opposition to the war in Iraq

Typical libs: Repeat a lie long enough and eventually they will believe it.

Republicans lost their majorities because they were acting like liberals. In dozens of races, the results were razor thin. In part, that was due to a small percentage of true conservatives staying home.

If the Republicans had 4-5 real conservatives running for Senate instead of races where RINO's were running, and 25-30 real conservatives running in races where RINO's were running, the results would have been dramatically different.

[Bishop_Malachi]

“All these puzzles lead to the ultimate question: What are we doing in Iraq? If we just want to get out, that’s one thing, and the solution is fairly obvious. But if we’re concerned about what we leave behind, the question’s a lot harder. Few Democrats have addressed that question, in part because they don’t know the answer. Nor, by the way, do Republicans.”

_______________________________________________________

Is the author of this article completely ignorant? The Bush Administration laid out victory goals years ago. Has this putz forgotten The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (published in late 2005, I believe). Moreover, Bush enumerated the main points of the plan in several speeches. This guy is clueless.

[Does so]

"...The Democrats recaptured the House and Senate in the 2006 election in large part because of the growing opposition to the war in Iraq..."

Let's not forget the "little" things.

They sprung Mark Foley (my Congressman) on an unsuspecting electorate with only two months to recover. My district nearly recovered, with just 1000 votes electing his Dim replacement.