Bush's war at home

[cal04]

Even as George Bush's Baghdad surgers pursue displaced Sunni insurgents into northern Diyala and Salahuddin provinces, ever more vicious guerrilla warfare is roiling the home front. Hand-to-hand combat between testy White House Republicans and emboldened Democrats threatens to overshadow events on the ground in Iraq - and may prove decisive in a way the president's 28,000-troop reinforcement cannot.

Mr Bush is stubbornly resisting Democratic efforts to link a withdrawal timetable to renewed Congressional funding for the war. Leading Republican hopefuls in next year's presidential election are lining up behind him. Although Senator John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney may soften their stance once the nomination is decided, they are focused now on wooing the party's conservative base. "The Democrats want to set a date for withdrawal, which should be named a date certain for surrender," Mr McCain told a weekend rally. Mr Giuliani, former New York mayor, said the issue defined the difference between the parties. Mr Romney, former governor of traditionally liberal Massachusetts, is doing his hawkish bit, too: he has joined the National Rifle Association, which lobbies against gun controls.

Opposition positions are also hardening. Democrats should not forget the message of last November's mid-term elections: that a change of Iraq policy was overdue, said columnist Paul Krugman. Republican "smear and fear tactics" had stopped working, he said. And Washington conventional wisdom that Democrats would be penalised for supposedly undermining troops in the field simply underestimated people's intelligence.

"The public hates this war, no longer has any trust in Bush's leadership and doesn't believe anything the administration says," Mr Krugman said. "Far from being a risky political move, the confrontation over funding has overwhelming popular support. According to a new CBS poll, only 29% of voters believe Congress should allow war funding without a time limit, while 67% either want to cut off funding or impose a time limit."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2058695,00.html

[Bitwit1234]

1. Tell me why winning is the only goal.

And that means winning the way the republicans want. First, just what do they mean by winning. Does it mean the terrorist will lay down their arms and bow down to bush. Does it mean they will stop fighting and go to their homes.

And why is not a so called peaceful withdrawal and the conflict stopped called a surrender. I would like for a rabid republican to explain why bush means by winning.