what's going on here (part VIII½)...

Frank Rich (New York Times OpEd) points out what has been obvious this past week...

There’s no panacea to end the civil war that four years of American bumbling have wrought. But the one truly serious story to come out of the election — far more significant than the Washington chatter about “divided Democrats” — is that the president has no intention of changing his policy on Iraq or anything else one iota.

Already we are seeing conclusive evidence that the White House’s post-thumpin’ blather about bipartisanship is worth as little as the “uniter, not a divider” bunk of the past. The tip-off came last week when Mr. Bush renominated a roster of choices for the federal appeals court that he knew faced certain rejection by Democrats. Why? To deliver a message to the entire Senate consonant with the unprintable greeting Dick Cheney once bestowed on Patrick Leahy, the senator from Vermont. That message was seconded by Tony Snow on Monday when David Gregory of NBC News asked him for a response to the Democrats’ Iraq proposals. The press secretary belittled them as “nonspecific” and then tried to deflect the matter entirely by snickering at Mr. Gregory’s follow-up questions. Source: It’s Not the Democrats Who Are Divided, NYT, November 19, 2006

Mr. Rich goes on to say that the Democrats aren't going to be able to extract the US from the Iraquagmire alone. They are going to need the help of the Republicans. The voters on November 7th, as he & many others aptly point out, said very clearly: IT'S THE WAR, STUPID! The only problem is that Mr. Bush is not only of an addictive personality but borderlines on obsessive as well, the proverbial one track mind.

Sadly, the politics of 2008 are on the minds of most politicians. I fear that there won't be much movement until there is a new president. Everyone is too afraid of gaining/loosing power for their party and themselves. Case in point, as Frank Rich points out, is John McCain who in the past was a voice of reason and sanity:

Don’t count Mr. McCain among them. His call for more troops even when there are no more troops is about presidential politics, a dodge that allows him to argue in perpetuity that we never would have lost Iraq if only he had been heeded from the start.

It's not just a matter of winning in Iraq. It's not only saving face for the country. It's not remaining the world's only super power.

But, does it have to mean another 2,000 American troops killed? 150,000+ Iraqis slaughtered? Another $7 Billion wasted? An additional New Orleans down the tubes? Double the $8.5 Trillion US debt?

just asking...