It's a refrain we hear over and over and over again from the punditry and the media: the outcome of this election will largely be determined by events on the ground. And to be sure, there is some truth in it. After all, if a major terrorist attack occurs on our soil, one way or another, it will effect the outcome of the election (I think it'd help Bush, although that makes no rational sense).
But we also hear the situation in Iraq will largely be determined by "events." More precisely, by how many bodybags come home. The notion being that if less soldiers die closer to the election, then more people will vote for Bush. I disagree completely. I mean, perhaps there will be a few voters here and there who will vote for Bush because Iraq calms down.
But I think enough has happened already to show what a disaster Bush's Iraq policy has been. It's only 90-something days from the election, does anyone think Iraq will turn into the Garden of Eden once again before Nov. 2? I think voters turned off by Bush's Iraq policy will not likely change their mind in 90 days if soldiers die with less frequency. We're closing in on 1,000 deaths. After 1 1/2 years of travesty and tragedy, Americans aren't going to change their minds on a whim.