OT: 2008 Elections

[Slumberland]

This was going so well. Take it down a notch. Or eight.

[Jared]

Agreed...take it down a notch.

[Rodster]

Wow I do get your point but you could have made your point without all those fill in the blank words.

[webdanzer]

I believe that was a quote from Team America: World Police.

[FatPitcher]

Wow I do get your point but you could have made your point without all those fill in the blank words.

You should watch Team America.

Edit: Beaten!

[Slumberland]

Oh! Well if it's puppets, that certainly takes the edge off a bit.

I found this a pretty interesting parallel, from Andrew Sullivan's blog, on the failed British occupation of Iraq:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... th-11.html

Granted, we've got a lot of whiz-bang techno-doodads they didn't have, but you have to wonder if it's just an impossible task.

[Slumberland]

By the by, the Hillary campaign malevolently floating that pic of Obama in Somali elder garb is really disappointing. Who is giving her this kind of advice? If the way she's running her campaign is any indication of how she would run an administration... yeesh.

[Brando70]

I believe that was a quote from Team America: World Police.

My problem with Iraq is it's distracting us from our real enemy, Canada.

[pk500]

By the by, the Hillary campaign malevolently floating that pic of Obama in Somali elder garb is really disappointing. Who is giving her this kind of advice? If the way she's running her campaign is any indication of how she would run an administration... yeesh.

Is anyone surprised? This is Clinton Politics 101, descending to any level in a vain move to grab power.

There is no level to which this woman and her husband could stoop that would surprise me.

Take care,
PK

[Slumberland]

Not surprised at the tactic so much as their sudden tone-deafness for how far they can go with this kind of stuff before turning people off. You saw of a bit of real-time behavior modification in last week's debate where she was booed for the "xerox" quip and then turned gracious by debate's end. I imagine she's going after Obama's electability with a stunt like this ("look what the right will be able to throw out there if you make him the nominee!"), but this kind of stuff hasn't been working. He is strangely teflon... OR she was never as viable a candidate as the mainstream media made her out to be.

[RobVarak]

It will be interesting to see if the GOP repeats her mistake of trying to dismiss him as a hollow orator. What they need to do is make the independent aware of the fact that Republicans empathize with the electorate's fascination with Obama. Rather than saying Obama has nothing behind his words, they need to emphasize that it's his ideas that are the problem (from their perspective of course).

Hopefully we see more thoughtful discussion and criticism of his philosophies, beliefs and propososals, like the one below from Victor Davis Hanson. America has already decided that they like Obama personally. What they need to be persuaded of is that they may like him personally but that his policies are not good for the electorate or the nation.

Or McCain could come out, laugh at the fact that he's being challenged by a half-term Senator with no apprecialbe record of accomplishment at any point in his career and ideas pried from the rotting carcass of the New Deal...and lose.



Hanson's analysis (some of which was accurately anticipated by wco earlier in the thread)

The Racial Paradox

Racial solidarity or perhaps racial atonement is the subtext of Michelle Obama’s controversial speech, and the lame meae culpae that followed. So now we are in this Orwellian paradox of seeing Obama’s base turn out in record numbers on the basis apparently of race, but on the other hand the implied warning that if anyone else were likewise to consider that fact, then he would be racialist.



So is he an identity-politics candidate or a post racialist unifier? Or both? It all reminds me of the perennial complaints of the National Council of La Raza (the race) lecturing insensitive others about their unfair consideration of race in matters of illegal immigration. This is very disappointing, because lost in Obamania is the complete repudiation of his original promise precisely not to become a racial candidate.



Instead, in brilliant fashion, he has not only done so to secure his base, and out trump the identity politics of the possible first female nominee, but added a narcissistic and minatory twist that only by voting for someone who denies he is running on race do others have a chance to prove that they are beyond race. The country is soon to be in a position, thanks to the Obamas, that voting for a national hero, with three decades of governmental experience, and prior national campaign savvy over a half-term U.S. Senator is proof of being illiberal.



There are two general themes to his message that he has begun, to be fair, to articulate in more detailed fashion. At home, there will be an increase in taxes—income, estate, payroll—to fund more government health care, education, and general entitlement programs. The old Reaganesque notion that government subsidies can make one more dependent, angrier, and envious is forgotten, along with the notion that lower taxes stimulate economic growth and encourage risk-taking, innovation, and independence. I worry especially about the lifting of income caps (how far?) on social security taxes inasmuch as they were part of the original covenant justifying the caps on benefits paid out.



NAFTA and other free trade agreements would be repealed; illegal immigration would either not be an issue, or more a problem of finding the right way, with borders still open, to grant amnesties. Appointments would hinge on a belief in bigger government and the theme that the individual is currently suffering due to reactionaries in government and corporations, barely housed, fed, or educated, and deserves more federal dollars appropriated from others who either don’t need all their income or didn’t deserve the compensation they were given.



Abroad, there is a general argument that things are going terribly. Forget that the Taliban and Saddam are gone. Forget that we have not suffered another 9/11 attack. Forget that there is far more democratic promise in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Lebanon than was true in 2001. Forget that the Merkel and Sarkozy governments, along with Eastern European leaders, are more pro-American than their predecessors in 2001.



Instead, we are disliked by everyone, and for good reasons. The fact that Iranian mullahs, the House of Saud cousins, Hugo Chavez’s communists, European mullahs, and the Arab street don’t approve of America says more about us than it does them. The solution is to follow more the dictates of European Union and United Nations, where sophisticated internationalists can guide us through the maze of global power, instructing mostly ignorant Americans how and why we tend to cause so many of the world’s problems. Misunderstanding and our own obtuseness explain global tension, not the agendas of enemies who know exactly what they want and how to get it.



Our military is not so much an offensive force, designed to defeat and kill our enemies, that needs support and constant honing; better to see it as a large social organization that we must look at in terms only of proper rotations, health care, and benefits. We are to support the troops not in the sense of doing everything we can to ensure they win, and gain the proper recognition for their courage and sacrifice, but rather in consideration of their victimhood, offering proper sympathy and remediation for the defeat in Iraq, the unwise use of their skills, and the needless loss of their lives.

[XXXIV]

I believe that was a quote from Team America: World Police.

My problem with Iraq is it's distracting us from our real enemy, Canada.

Blame Canada!!!

[Jared]

Victor David Hansson's analysis is a joke. For example, Obama does not want to repeal NAFTA, he does not want open borders (and in fact has campaigned on tighter border security), he opines that the record turnout in the Democratic primary is because of race with no data supporting that contention, trumpets failed Reagan ideas, oversimplifies Democratic ideas regarding tax dollars and the poor and undereducated, amazingly states that the Taliban are gone (do a Google news search on the Taliban and tell me that they are gone), completely ignores the instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the civil war and tens to hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, and other major problems caused by our policy (ignoring this all because they have "far more democratic promise"), and completely misrepresents the views of Obama (and Democrats) regarding our image abroad and Obama's view of the armed forces.

[Leebo33]

he opines that the record turnout in the Democratic primary is because of race with no data supporting that contention

I do agree with that. He should leave opining about elections and race without supporting data to Ed Rendell.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/ ... candidate/

[XXXIV]

Victor David Hansson's analysis is a joke. For example, Obama does not want to repeal NAFTA, he does not want open borders (and in fact has campaigned on tighter border security), he opines that the record turnout in the Democratic primary is because of race with no data supporting that contention, trumpets failed Reagan ideas, oversimplifies Democratic ideas regarding tax dollars and the poor and undereducated, amazingly states that the Taliban are gone (do a Google news search on the Taliban and tell me that they are gone), completely ignores the instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the civil war and tens to hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, and other major problems caused by our policy (ignoring this all because they have "far more democratic promise"), and completely misrepresents the views of Obama (and Democrats) regarding our image abroad and Obama's view of the armed forces.

Dudes a d***** ...Its guys like him that make the world a worse place to live in.

I have trouble with people like that on both sides. The guy reminds of Bill Mawr and his representation of the Gop....

The way I understood it was that white males who voted in the dem primaries were voting for Obama.

[RobVarak]

Victor David Hansson's analysis is a joke.

It may be, I'll get to that. But I stand by my original point, which is that engagement on the issues is preferable to dismissing Obama in the manner of the Clinton campaign.

For example, Obama does not want to repeal NAFTA,

I disagree. He has made it clear that he understands that a repeal is impossible, but it's quite clear from his rhetoric that he would like very much to do so. He's vehemently anti-free trade, and Hanson is pointing out the world as Obama would like to see it, so to that extent I think it's a useful point.

he does not want open borders (and in fact has campaigned on tighter border security),

Technically you're correct, but you do have to account for the fact that the far Right views any measure short of full deportation as "open borders." McCain suffers from that bit of insanity nearly as much as my dear Senator from Illinois.

he opines that the record turnout in the Democratic primary is because of race with no data supporting that contention

I interpreted this portion of his piece as stating that Obama's "base" aka black voters, were turning out in record numbers. I do admit that this is obviously taking place in an environment of high turnout throughout the electorate, but that doesn't diminish the underlying point. Blacks are turning out in record numbers to vote for Obama becuase he's black. I don't think this is a conclusion that requires much exit polling data.

Moreover, I think Hanson is correct in the way that race is playing out...at least in the primaries. If you're for Obama it's because he's a "transformative" figure. Please do not insult me or the forum by suggetsting that this messianic status is not due in part to his race. Yet, his detractors have consistently faced criticism for being reactionary or racist. Obama himself obviously stays away from such wet work, but it's common enough from his supporters.

trumpets failed Reagan ideas,

You're going to have to be more specific here. If you're talking about the philosophy of lower taxes and decreased regulation which led to unprecedented growth and stability, we have different definitions of the word "failed."

oversimplifies Democratic ideas regarding tax dollars and the poor and undereducated,

It's hard to oversimplify what is in so many ways already overly simple. Obama does advocate higher taxes and more entitlements. You may not be happy with Hanson's characterization of the mechanics of this program, but it's an accurate one.

amazingly states that the Taliban are gone (do a Google news search on the Taliban and tell me that they are gone),

OK. Just one minute while I do the Google search. They're gone. What was once the ruling party of a nation is now a splintered, albeit still dangerous, insurgent terrorist organization. They are, like Saddam, deposed and unable to use the resources of a nation to support terrorism.

a completely ignores the instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the civil war and tens to hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, and other major problems caused by our policy (ignoring this all because they have "far more democratic promise"),

Instability in both cases is preferable to stable and able to do our nation direct harm. Your line about "our policy" is telling though, as it echoes exactly the sort of hairshirt liberal guilt that underlies the entire Left's approach to the War. Whatever "they" did is justified by our actions, and no matter what we do any mistake we make in the prosecution of the war is totally unjustified.

and completely misrepresents the views of Obama (and Democrats) regarding our image abroad and Obama's view of the armed forces.

This one is interesting. Apparently you have access to a very different breed of Obama supporter than I do, or that I see in the media. (And if so, I'm envious...as I've tired of dealing with starry-eyed disciples rather quickly) I have never seen Obama or one of his supporters suggest that supporting the troops meant anything other than removing them from harm's way. Both Obama and Clinton justify their advocacy of retreat from Iraq by cravenly suggesting that they're doing it to support the troops.

On the other hand, I will give Obama credit for creating the Mother of All Loopholes on this issue. From his website:

if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home

He doesn't play up that angle much Of course there's not an intelligence organization in the world that can't confirm that al-Quaeda is already trying to build a base within Iraq. They've viewed Iraq as the seat of the Caliphate and they aren't going to stop infiltrating that nation anytime soon. So maybe all of this is moot when President Obama swears the oath and then says, "Lo and behold, I cannot withdraw the troops becuase al-Quaeda is trying to establish a base."

As for this,

The solution is to follow more the dictates of European Union and United Nations, where sophisticated internationalists can guide us through the maze of global power, instructing mostly ignorant Americans how and why we tend to cause so many of the world’s problems. Misunderstanding and our own obtuseness explain global tension, not the agendas of enemies who know exactly what they want and how to get it.

That is a damn accurate assesment of the philosophy of much of the Left of the foreign policy establishment. I just finished reading Madeline Albright's book, which was positively garbage, and it laid out a very similar position. Even Richard Holbrooke, a more pragmatic thinker than Albright at least, has essentially made the same arguments. Having Zbignew Brzezinski as your principal advisor on international policy is simply not a good way to go, but he's the perfect man for the job in this case. He's never met an impotent policy he didn't embrace.

Still at the risk of being even more redundant than usual, Davis' particular conclusions aside, my initial point was that I think that this is where the general election campaign needs to be fought if the GOP wants to have a chance. They can trot out all the embarassing pictures and sleazy e-mails that the Clintons have used, but it'll get them no farther. The public has already voted on the experience issue as well, and they clearly don't care about Obama's shortcomings in that area.

[wco81]

What would be the opposite of "impotent policy?"

Raise the ante in Iraq?

Take the war to Iran?

[Jared]

It may be, I'll get to that. But I stand by my original point, which is that engagement on the issues is preferable to dismissing Obama in the manner of the Clinton campaign.

Actually, I agree. I really hope that both the Obama and McCain campaigns focus on the issues.

For example, Obama does not want to repeal NAFTA,

I disagree. He has made it clear that he understands that a repeal is impossible, but it's quite clear from his rhetoric that he would like very much to do so. He's vehemently anti-free trade, and Hanson is pointing out the world as Obama would like to see it, so to that extent I think it's a useful point.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008 ... id=4336481

""I don't think its realistic for us to repeal NAFTA," he said during a town hall meeting on the economy.

He argued arguing that because the trade deal had been passed more than a decade ago, it was entrenched in the economy, and any attempt to repeal it "would actually result in more job loss ... than job gains."

he does not want open borders (and in fact has campaigned on tighter border security),

Technically you're correct, but you do have to account for the fact that the far Right views any measure short of full deportation as "open borders." McCain suffers from that bit of insanity nearly as much as my dear Senator from Illinois.

Well, if Hanson claims that Obama wants open borders, but is actually campaigning on tighter border security, then I consider that a lazy or dishonest statement.

he opines that the record turnout in the Democratic primary is because of race with no data supporting that contention

I interpreted this portion of his piece as stating that Obama's "base" aka black voters, were turning out in record numbers. I do admit that this is obviously taking place in an environment of high turnout throughout the electorate, but that doesn't diminish the underlying point. Blacks are turning out in record numbers to vote for Obama becuase he's black. I don't think this is a conclusion that requires much exit polling data.

Moreover, I think Hanson is correct in the way that race is playing out...at least in the primaries. If you're for Obama it's because he's a "transformative" figure. Please do not insult me or the forum by suggetsting that this messianic status is not due in part to his race. Yet, his detractors have consistently faced criticism for being reactionary or racist. Obama himself obviously stays away from such wet work, but it's common enough from his supporters.

Blacks are turning out in record numbers....as well as whites, men, women, etc. And your claim that "Blacks are turning out in record numbers to vote for Obama because he's black" doesn't stand scrutiny, since the Democratic part has had other black candidates and not the same turnout.

Furthermore, you really think that people are rallying around Obama because he's black? Do you have any evidence for this claim? You can ask people that have voted for him and see....

But from the people I know that are voting for him, they like his positions and his message.

(I won't go into the Reagan comment or the taxes comment...just because that itself would be a giant post)

amazingly states that the Taliban are gone (do a Google news search on the Taliban and tell me that they are gone),

OK. Just one minute while I do the Google search. They're gone. What was once the ruling party of a nation is now a splintered, albeit still dangerous, insurgent terrorist organization. They are, like Saddam, deposed and unable to use the resources of a nation to support terrorism.

In essence, is your answer "It depends on what the definition of "gone" is?" Positively Clintonian. Anyways, "gone" to me does not mean a dangerous insurgent group that still controls parts of the country.

a completely ignores the instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the civil war and tens to hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, and other major problems caused by our policy (ignoring this all because they have "far more democratic promise"),

Instability in both cases is preferable to stable and able to do our nation direct harm. Your line about "our policy" is telling though, as it echoes exactly the sort of hairshirt liberal guilt that underlies the entire Left's approach to the War. Whatever "they" did is justified by our actions, and no matter what we do any mistake we make in the prosecution of the war is totally unjustified.

Hairshirt liberal guilt? Yes, I guess I'm just a hippie for thinking that the focus should have been on securing Afghanistan and that the current situation in Iraq wasn't worth the deaths of anywhere from 80,000 to 400,000 Iraqis, thousands of Americans, and making the country worse, for an extended period of time, than it was when Saddam was in power.

And even with that, the action of Iraqis fomenting the current civil war and insurgency is NOT justified by our actions. And some mistakes we make are justified. (I really think you confuse the policies and opinions of the Democratic part with those of the far left. Do you really think that Obama, for example, thinks that whatever "they" do is justified?)

In fact, I think that a lot of the characterization of the policy stands of both parties are purposely exaggerated by the "other side" in order to demonize the other side.

[RobVarak]

For example, Obama does not want to repeal NAFTAI disagree. He has made it clear that he understands that a repeal is impossible, but it's quite clear from his rhetoric that he would like very much to do so. He's vehemently anti-free trade, and Hanson is pointing out the world as Obama would like to see it, so to that extent I think it's a useful point.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008 ... id=4336481

""I don't think its realistic for us to repeal NAFTA," he said during a town hall meeting on the economy.

He argued arguing that because the trade deal had been passed more than a decade ago, it was entrenched in the economy, and any attempt to repeal it "would actually result in more job loss ... than job gains."

That was the statement to which I was referring. He's vehemently anti-NAFTA, he's philosophically opposed to free trade and he would like to repeal the agreement. It's evident to me that he would like to repeal NAFTA but feels his hands are tied by the economic realities.

wco81 wrote:

What would be the opposite of "impotent policy?"

Raise the ante in Iraq?

Take the war to Iran?

Maybe. Maybe not. Either of those could be an effective policy depending on events. My point was that Brzezenski has a track record of poor decision making in international affairs, and an even longer paper trail as a scholar which makes him a frightfully unfit advisor in this area. I was not stating that Obama would necessarly have a weak, misguided and poorly conceived foreign policy, but association with policymakers of Brzezenski's ilk does make it more likely than not.

[Brando70]

This was Obama's response to why he voted against the CAFTA agreement with Central America in 2005. It matches what he has been saying all along:

http://obama.senate.gov/news/050630-why ... /index.php

Here's a particularly relevant part:

Globalization is not someone's political agenda. It is a technological revolution that is fundamentally changing the world's economy, producing winners and losers along the way. The question is not whether we can stop it, but how we respond to it. It's not whether we should protect our workers from competition, but what we can do to fully enable them to compete against workers all over the world.

I don't see how that or any of his statements make him "philosophically opposed to free trade." He may not be laissez faire about it, and he has certainly had some beefs with specific agreements, but his angle has always been that globalization will happen no matter what. What we have to do is manage this transition, because it's really hurting some people while benefiting others.

I also think the racial aspect of Obama's campaign is really not that critical to his success any more. It was at the beginning, and it certainly plays a role. But the bigger issue is his personality and character.

I was thinking about this while reading the profile of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the last issue of Esquire. Scharzenegger faced many of the same issues as Obama did during the recall election, especially about the experience question. Schawarzenegger's response was that there were plenty of experienced people in Sacramento, and that they had led the state into a fiscal nightmare. He stressed ideas and leadership over experience, and that really resonated with the voters. Obviously, California is still a mess, but the point is he was appealing because people were tired of the status quo and Schawarzeneggger had an aura of charisma and leadership.

I think that's the much bigger factor with Obama than his race. His lack of experience helps him as a candidate because he doesn't have the entrenched political baggage of the other candidates. Politics is a dirty business, and even the good politicians get muddy over time. Obama hasn't had much time to get slimed the way McCain and Clinton have. That's why the "change" message, which critics keep harping as empty, has so much appeal: it's what a lot of voters want, and it's a message that fits the messenger.

[wco81]

Maybe. Maybe not. Either of those could be an effective policy depending on events. My point was that Brzezenski has a track record of poor decision making in international affairs, and an even longer paper trail as a scholar which makes him a frightfully unfit advisor in this area. I was not stating that Obama would necessarly have a weak, misguided and poorly conceived foreign policy, but association with policymakers of Brzezenski's ilk does make it more likely than not.

Unfit from the hawkish POV.

For others, figures like Richard Perle or now Condi Rice, Hadley and all the neocons who were central around 2003 are unfit, prone to push an interventionist agenda which supposedly the nation no longer supports.

It's always going to be the same cast of characters who return depending on whether a Democratic or GOP administration takes office. And the Senate will confirm most of them without too much debate.

McCain now is pushing the line that the surge worked. Certainly the metrics are better and the deals with various militias are keeping things relatively peaceful -- compared to 2006 that is, Baghdad is still a very violent place, even after the Shia have cleansed a lot of neighborhoods of non-Shia.

But the fundamental problem is that if American troop presence was drawn down, there's no guarantee that the peace will last because there has been no meaningful political reconciliation.

National security/foreign policy may crop up later this year if some unfortunate event or series of events occur, like a major terrorist attack or violence surging in Iraq/Afghanistan.

For now, the economy is foremost on the minds of the electorate.

[RobVarak]

Unfit from the hawkish POV.

For others, figures like Richard Perle or now Condi Rice, Hadley and all the neocons who were central around 2003 are unfit, prone to push an interventionist agenda which supposedly the nation no longer supports.

It's always going to be the same cast of characters who return depending on whether a Democratic or GOP administration takes office. And the Senate will confirm most of them without too much debate.

Actually, most hawks feel quite affectionate toward Brzezinski. He was quite a hawk for his day, advocating military support for the Shah or Iran, strongly urging support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and calling for the independence of various nations inside the Soviet Union at a time when doing so was considered quite impolitic. He was a fervent anti-communist at a time when much of the Democratic foreign policy establishment had its priorities elsewhere, and he was constantly butting heads by advocating hawkish realpolitik solutions while Carter and Vance emphasized their human rights-first approach to international relations.

Hawks wold not have a problem with him, and his agenda was fervently interventionist. My beef with him was that he appears to have not treated the problem of Islamic fundamentalism with the same intellectual vigor and singlemindedness with which he once approached the Cold War. He foolishly criticizes the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations while fatuously ignoring disasters wrought by his former boss and his nemesis Cyrus Vance. He's a proponent of the foolish "Globalism" v. "Neocon" didactic which is a grossly inaccurate means of seeing current events and IR, and his anti-Israeli postions have calcified over the years into a sort of silly obsession.

As for it being the "same cast of characters" that is obviously true to some extent. But there is a wealth of intellectual talent on both sides of the aisle when it comes to foreign affairs, and I just hate to see Obama tie himself to this particular advisor.

For now, the economy is foremost on the minds of the electorate.

True. That may or may not be the case when November rolls aroud, though. It's a long way to the election when judged by news cycles.

[JRod]

But the fundamental problem is that if American troop presence was drawn down, there's no guarantee that the peace will last because there has been no meaningful political reconciliation.

National security/foreign policy may crop up later this year if some unfortunate event or series of events occur, like a major terrorist attack or violence surging in Iraq/Afghanistan.

For now, the economy is foremost on the minds of the electorate.

And this is what bothers me from the Dems side. They talk about pulling out but they can't even have a logical discussion that if we just withdraw troops, there is no way that a sustained peace will last.

I know their supporters are anti-war but there's a difference between anti-way, and Iraq turning into Afghanistan after the Russian left.

With the political and religious instability, I don't see how if there are troop withdrawals Iraq gets any better. Surely it will only be a matter of time before some of the militias make a play for power through violence. And with a weak police force and military how can they repel that threat or not be infiltrated by the militias.

I wish Obama or Clinton could answer that question.

[RobVarak]

I wish Obama or Clinton could answer that question.

Neither will say it, but neither is going to bring the troops home at anyting near the rates that they are proposing. You're right about the ramifications of a retreat at this point. Like I said earlier, Obama already has the justification written into his policy:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home


Now that is change I can believe in I haven't looked, but I would guess that Clinton's policy statement is drafted creatively enough to allow a similar justification.

Edit: In my 10 minute search, I did not find a similar loophole in the Clinton Iraq policy. Make of that what you will.

[kevinpars]

I agree with that sentiment. I think it would be a mistake to just pick up and leave - that would do a lot more harm than good. At this point it no longer matters how or why we went into Iraq. What matters now is that we leave the place in better shape than when we went over there. I feel like that is an obligation and something we owe to the Iraqi people.