The MSM's latest voter suppression effort

Here is the latest mainstream media attempt to demoralize Republicans and affect the outcome of next month's elections.

From The Washington Post:

The growing doubts among GOP lawmakers about the administration's Iraq strategy, coupled with the prospect of Democratic wins in next month's midterm elections, will soon force the Bush administration to abandon its open-ended commitment to the war, according to lawmakers in both parties, foreign policy experts and others involved in policymaking.

Senior figures in both parties are coming to the conclusion that the Bush administration will be unable to achieve its goal of a stable, democratic Iraq within a politically feasible time frame. Agitation is growing in Congress for alternatives to the administration's strategy of keeping Iraq in one piece and getting its security forces up and running while 140,000 U.S. troops try to
keep a lid on rapidly spreading sectarian violence.

On the campaign trail, Democratic candidates are hammering Republican candidates for backing a failed Iraq policy, and GOP defense of the war is growing muted. A new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released this week showed that voters are more confident in Democrats' ability to handle the Iraq war than the Republicans' -- a reversal from the last election.

Few officials in either party are talking about an immediate pullout of U.S. combat troops. But interest appears to be growing in several broad ideas. One would be some kind of effort to divide the country along regional lines. Another, favored by many Democrats, is a gradual withdrawal of troops over a set period of time. A third would be a dramatic scaling-back of U.S. ambitions in Iraq, giving up on democracy and focusing only on stability.

Makes it sound like a done deal that we're getting out of Iraq, right? Which "senior Republican" do they use for a source?

One point on which adherents of these sharply different approaches appear to agree is that "staying the course" is fast becoming a dead letter. "I don't believe that we can continue based on an open-ended, unconditional presence," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, a centrist Maine Republican. "I don't think there's any question about that, that there will be a change" in the U.S. strategy in Iraq after next month's elections.

That's right. Olympia J. Snowe. One of the small number of liberal RINOs in the Senate who, as Ann Coulter said about her fellow RINO Lincoln Chaffee, are too stupid to realize that they are Democrats.

What might someone who might actually be in the loop on the Administration's Iraq plans have to say about this?

White House officials describe the current turmoil over Iraq policy in Washington as an expected byproduct of the upsurge in violence. Press secretary Tony Snow yesterday dismissed a dramatic about-face in policy -- such as a division of the country or phased withdrawal -- as a "non-starter" and called the idea that the White House will seek a course correction in Iraq "a bunch of hooey."

Bush has been adamant that the United States will not withdraw its troops until the Iraqi government can defend itself.

So let's see. A left-wing RINO who only is only about one half step from being a declared enemy of the President says one thing about what the Bush Administration is planning and the President and his official spokesmen say the opposite and the press chooses to believe. . .

I have to admit that part of this has me torn. I have believed from the very first that the best solution to the Iraq problem was to divide the country into three states, Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd. The only reason that this was not considered was the objections of Turkey. The Turkish government feared that their own captive and oppressed Kurdish population, which lives in the part of Turkey which is adjacent to the Kurdish part of Iraq, would want to join the new Kurdistan.

Malcolm X once observed that if you could remove every last trace of racism from American society that most White people would still prefer to associate mainly with other White people and most Black people would still prefer to associate mainly with other Black people. Because it is a human trait to prefer the company of others whom we consider to be "our own kind". There is nothing wrong with this, it is not evil and it is nothing to be ashamed of.

The fact is that most of the violence in Africa stems from the fact that the borders of the nations were drawn in an arbitrary way by the European colonial powers and cut across tribal boundaries, forcing different tribes to share the same nationality.

Even though the three state option would be the best solution for Iraq it probably will not happen because of the Turkish problem. Anything which destabilizes Turkey would probably lead to a Turkish civil war which would certainly lead to a new Islamist government taking power. Instead of Turkey being a nation which is, on balance, more good than bad (if only slightly) we would end up with another Taliban-style regime. This time in a larger, much more wealthy nation located on the very edge of Europe.

When all factors are considered the best Iraq policy continues to be "stay the course", even if that isn't what people want to hear.

At the end of the day I would still rather have the Islamofascists who are determined to fight the Americans fighting our soldiers on Middle Eastern soil (and being slaughtered by them in the thousands) than fighting our civilians on US soil (and slaughtering them by the thousands).