You may be right. Moms look at wars of convenience as unfamily. One Presidental candidate wants wars to no end. They second Presidental canditate want war, if forced on his Presidency, to end as soon as the mission is completed.

Moms look at their sons differently that military officers.

Moms could very well define this election.

Respectfully,

wdp

"One Presidental candidate wants wars to no end. They second Presidental canditate want war, if forced on his Presidency, to end as soon as the mission is completed."

I assume you meant not instead of no. Not making an issue of your spelling, just stating that because it is key to what you were saying. I think it is idiotic to question someones spelling and or grammar on a site like this. Who has time to proof and reproof every post they put here. So AGAIN this comment is not meant in a critical way.

That being said, you cannot actually believe that. There view of the war and what outcome they would view as success may be different. But, to suggest that one is all for war and one will only stay till the mission is over.

So what does Obama consider mission accomplished? What will be achieved in the 16 months after he takes office that says OK now our work is done.

Making claims that anyone who has heard McCain's comments will realize are decidedly untrue only brings down any subsequent statements you make. It is impossible to believe that you have any sense of objectivity. There certainly are valid reasons to pick one over the other but you choose to toss about lies and distortions. Is that any worse than the last post I read that is angry about the omission of Obama's middle name when used by the media. Is that not also an attempt to spread a misrepresentation that anyone who knows anything realizes is not the case.

Your post is well taken. I was projecting my definition (which one-such as myself cannot do) from the definition of a mother.

My relation to McCain is his 50 to 100 year occupation of Iraq.

Obama wants to take our combat troops out of Iraq and send them to a nationstate that actually attacked our country. Historically America has stood up against imperalist nations. It is my opinion that Iraq was the US trying out imperalization and we got bit.

I was using satire. I apologize if I offended anyone.

I stand corrected.

Respectfully,

wdp

raptor5618:

So what does Obama consider mission accomplished?

I'm still waiting for Bush to tell us what he means by "mission accomplished". Obviously, his original pipe dream of a stable, secular democracy spontaneously emerging in Iraq once Saddam was out of the picture and then spreading freedom and democracy all over the middle east like wild flowers is not going to happen.

Since it's become clear that Bush's main goal over the past two years was to run out the clock and dump the Iraq problem into his successor's lap, we as voters have to decide how much more we should invest in Iraq.

I constantly see in the blogosphere that things are going so much better in Iraq than the media is reporting and we're making tons of progress. That refrain has been repeated ad infinitum four nearly five years now and yet all this "progress" that we've supposedly made never seems to be enough to say, "okay, it's time for the Iraqi government to take over its own security."

How much is enough? With all the wonderful progress we've made since the surge and how much safer McCain tells us Iraq is, I think 16 months is a generous time line (or "time horizon" if you prefer) to transfer the security apparatus. Obviously, we can be flexible on that figure, but really, how much more of this awesome progress do we have left to do?