Jodi - you were great! 

By the way - I took a liberty putting that up there, but I assumed it was ok, since you brought it up - if you want, say the word, and I'll take it down.

But, no,no you sound fine, and made good points.  Good job, Jodi.

No, I agree - just using that line to stress a point.

No I know, Mike.  Maybe I look at things from a "big picture view" but as much damage as any president can do -- we have protections to bring us back to center.  You know what I mean?  Bush and his lot would not have succeeded at sucking as much without a compliant legislature (including a weak opposition party) and lazy fourth estate.  But in spite of that we can (if we choose) break the cycle of partisian politics and fear.  To do that means trying to have discussions like the ones on this board where we've tried to be respectful of one another.  It means taking responsiblity for your words and admitting when you are wrong. It means having substantive criticism instead of spouting rhetoric.  It is not an easy thing (as we've seen) and I've certainly not always been successful, but I've tried.  It is because Obama (and McCain though not as much as late) have articulated a desire to have these kind of conversations I have allowed myself "The Audacity of Hope*"

*Thought you'd like that last bit Mike!

Damn, Geoff, you almost made me tear up with that one.  That's EXACTLY what I'm feeling these days, and it's why I'm so excited about Obama.

You're a great American, dude.

Setting dates to meet these goals is fine.  Arbitrary withdrawal dates without these objectives seems shortsighted to me. 

I think there is plenty justification for declaring victory and just packing up and going home.  But an objective based withdrawal is probably the best compromise.  It doesn't lock in a date, but it is easy to measure progress against the goals as they are accomplished.  Everyone could participate.  As it stands now we just have an open commitment with no exit strategy, and that pleases no one. 

By the way - I took a liberty putting that up there, but I assumed it was ok, since you brought it up - if you want, say the word, and I'll take it down.

Mike I am fine with you posting it, they cut me off though, I went on to say I had clipped it out of newspapers like the New York times, Washington post and went to government sites to get my information.

I honestly didn't know it was out there, I had taped it, but we accidently taped over it and when the Obama campaign worker was living here, I told him I battled Billo and he wanted to see it I will send him a link.

Thanks so much.

I love reading the comments, that's a hoot!

I think there is plenty justification for declaring victory and just packing up and going home.  But an objective based withdrawal is probably the best compromise.  It doesn't lock in a date, but it is easy to measure progress against the goals as they are accomplished.  Everyone could participate.  As it stands now we just have an open commitment with no exit strategy, and that pleases no one. 

Do you think we won't leave a garrison (of some kind) there?  And let me posit it this way -- if the Iraqi government asks us to maintain a presence should we?

As it stands now we just have an open commitment with no exit strategy, and that pleases no one.

Well... it pleases the members of PNAC (Project for a New American Century)- the goal was to get us in there perminantly, according to that public document, written in the late 90s and signed by future members of Bush's cabinet.

Sounds like it's going according to plan, by their standards.

if the Iraqi government asks us to maintain a presence should we?

No, and if they ask, we should point at Sadaam's grave and cough awkwardly.

No, and if they ask, we should point at Sadaam's grave and cough awkwardly.

LOL.  We'll agree to disagree on this one, if they ask I think we should.  Based partly on our historic practice of doing so.  If they ask us to leave I say get out ASAP.

To be honest, Geoff, if they asked, I'd say we should stay.

But... like... even that, I'd question who's asking.  Some of the citizenry are shooting at us - who wants us to stay?  You know?  I know, it's been suggested that those armed citizens are thugs or nuts, but... you never know.  We treated the British the same at one point.  Since we're the ones getting shot at, it's easy to assume they're the bad guys, and a lot of them are, and maybe even all of them, but we don't really know. 

Add to that, the fact that there is a vested interest for us to be there - let's just say - I'm suspicious.  However, I am willing to do the right thing for the citizens and their freedom - I just want to be sure we're clear on what that is.