For the past six years, Bush has not been able to define a "win" in Iraq. John McCain has not been able to define a "win" in Iraq.

The fact is, if you can't define a win, maybe it's because you've already lost. I don't like to sound pessimistic, but I think the facts are the facts. Is the surge working? I don't know,. But if you have to maintain the current troop level just to keep the violence down to a dull roar, and you say that you still can't leave because all hell will break loose, is that really winning? On the other hand, if you stay indefinitely and spend all your money and committ more lives to be lost, how is that winning?

The fact is that there are two actions we can take in Iraq which will require a great deal of political will and a great deal of committment.

1. We can start drawing our troops out, and trust that with some strong diplomacy in the region, that the people of Iraq will be able to hold their own.

2. We stay in Iraq indefintely, which means that we would have to maintain the current troop levels at a cost in lives and treasure similar to what we are paying now.

Neither one is what I would consider a win, but option 2(McCain's choice) is more of a loss. In order to try to maintain some semblance of peace you have to ask yourselves how would this be realistically accomplished? Are our national guard troops always going to be deployed in Iraq, should we do the draft again? how are we going to pay for it? Should we really be spending all our resources on staying in Iraq? What effect will that have on our economy?

Option 1 can only be accomplished if you put diplomacy back into the picture. Obama supports this plan,and he has said he believes in strong diplomacy, while John McCain (like Bush) doesn't believe in diplomacy.

Now, after looking at what are options really are in Iraq, how can you possibly say Obama and McCain have similar plans?

If you look at the justification for invading Iraq, there were two reasons cited. One, Iraq's possible stock of WMD. Two, Saddam the tyrant that posed a danger to all of the ME. We've scoured and turned up very little WMD. Check. We hung Saddam by his neck. Check.

Declare victory and get the troops home. If you can't add a new dimension to this occupation, then we have to get our troops. If it really is about stealing oil from Iraq as a number of our right wing trailer trash scum claim it is, then the president should state as much and Americans can decide if they want their kids getting killed and maimed for the purposes of lower gasoline prices. It is that simple.

you know, I did forget about the oil momentarily. There were those no bid contracts the other week. I wonder what effect that will have on everything? I only saw one news article about it and then nothing. Have you seen any analysis of that?

military bases around the world, want them closed too? They too cost billions to maintain........

I think Bush is working feverishly to get a deal done so that the likes of Exxon and BP can be fully in place by the time his term ends. I think his puppet Iraqi government is getting cold feet. Even if they ink a deal, I don't think it will stand the test of time. Iraqi oil is going to be nationalized.

that's a lot of 'yellowcake' yeah, Saddamn's 'yellowcake.' Evidently, fraylibs would have been happier, if AQ had Saddam's 'yellowcake?'

RS, now all that 'yellowcake' is close to your home, aren't you glad?

have no idea, liberals make sure, We Don't Win, ever again........

Hst_Fan:

military bases around the world, want them closed too? They too cost billions to maintain........

1. the funding for those other bases is already in the budget and have been for years. Not an issue

2. Our presence in Iraq requires more than just staffing a military base, our guys are out on patrol and are getting shot at, and we are conducting real military exercises with real guns, real amunition, we are trying to rebuild what we've taken down, its costing billions of dollars to maintain that presence. Unless of course you're going to tell me its really not costing us that much to stay in Iraq, and if that is the case, where is the money going?

it's just iraq you got a problem with, I see. I think all your rhetoric just went down a patizan sinkhole. You favor US military interventionsim untill you see a political opportunity to elect one of your condidates, just another warmonger striking a faux anti war pose........

At this point a "win" is avoiding being driven out with none of our objectives accomplished. That is (unfortunately) not available under a President Obama because the Democrats are all on record declaring that we already lost in Iraq (and that under no circumstances can we win)...

and what would those objective be? Bush keeps changing them, McCain won't really be clear.