Why would Sarah Palin have foreign policy experience to any greater degree than Barack Obama's "street cred" variety? When was the last time the Croats or Serbs or Iranians bombard or invade Chicago's South Side? Eh?

Is this to be expected? She's at least on par with the Messiah's fish and loaves tricks with the crowds.

I would say it's more accurate to say she does not know much about Kaplan's--and many other liberals--desire for the outsourcing, or Kyotofication of foreign policy. Just as we outsource company benefits, health insurance, pension plans, and gardening these days, so too some people think it improper to go it alone in foreign policy.

Just as the far right has a strong isolationist streak and thinks you can build walls to keep out terrorists in an age of jetliners and credit cards and lax borders, so the left has its own mythology that says deferring to a demographically and economicall moribund Europe hobbled by Islamism is the Shining Path to global security. A point brilliantly parodied by writers like Mark Steyn. You see, it dosen't work. Spain got popped upside the head with a 3-11 hit and decided that Al Quaida was to run their elections from there on out.

That's the fighting spirit!

Elsewhere we see that Al Quida very much WAS in Iraq for quite a while. Dems tell us the real fight is in Afghanistan and that Iraq never attacked us! Brilliant analysis, Obama! Wonder how many of the German Lufftwaffe rained bombs on Pearl Harbor, for that matter?

Come to think of it, Afghanistan per se did not attack us either, and neither did the Taliban. They HARBORED those who did. Hmm. That's interesting in itself:

Iraq under Hussein:

-----funded a foiled car bomb attack on America's Radio Free Europe offices in 1998. -----gave protection and aid to Abu Nidal and Abu al-Abbas, notorious terrorists of world renown largely believed responsible for, respectively, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the murder of American Leon Klinghoffer during the October 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro. -----gave hundred of thousands of dollars to support suicide bombers at malls and groceries stores in Israel and some other places. -----provided medical attention and safe have for expert bomb maker Abu Musab Zarqawi (a.k.a. The Decapitator), who was perhaps the most enthusiastic, active, and dangerous field agent of Al Qaeda ever, is responsible for the murder of not only dozens of Westerners in Iraq, including aid workers, journalists, and engineers, but according to German Federal Intelligence, also for the murder of an American diplomat in Jordan earlier in 2003. (The US was in Iraq when they finally nailed him). -----had trained, armed, and funded members of at least SIX terrorist networks since the early 1980s. -----plotted and funded a car bomb attack on a former president of the United States. -----had been identified as a terrorist network leader and supplier by the U.S. State Department every year since 1993. -----Had a long history of backing terrorist networks targeting Israel and urging "holy war" against the Jews. So for all this yickyack about "Hussein did not attack us," and/or "he's a SECULAR ruler, so he's "not really a problem" or "in league" with the likes of Al Qaeda" falls a little short of the point. Long before George Bush was even sitting around wranglin' up Texas barbecue wondering about a move to the governorship of Texas, the State Department warned us about Hussein. Gosh: Good thing liberals like Obama stick to the guns and claim to this day where the "real" war on terror is. What happens, though, if Bill Moyers or the CBS minions claim that Afghanistan too is about to Go Quagmire. It might. Then what?

Obama for his part agrees NOT in the noble ideals of American self-reliance (which has worked great elsewhere) or military prowess (ditto) or residual cultural self-confidence(ditto), but deferring power to pseudo-state bodies. Which indicates, just as with the Old Right's "realpolitick" stance, a complete lack of understanding about the modern world. He and the Democrats asked for an Exit Strategy about a day after the boots hit the sand. The sad reality is that the "long war" (which is what a fight against Islamism MUST be, as no short war will do the trick against such a Hydra like creature in multiple nations) is how you fight sometimes. Thus we need to have all strategy--with no exits--obvious to the enemy. Doing what is right or deemed necessary at the time is not about avoiding caskets on planes or making people comfortable that no one gets their hair mussed or makes the British or Spaniards mad. Nor should it involved giving prestige by meeting unconditionally with Little Adolfs from pestholes like Iran.

Whatever Sarah Palin's lack of pointy-head sophistication--the type that has yet to bring peace or pacify the Allah Knowns Best Crowd--she at least isn't caught up in this disinformation professionelle that afflicts so many liberals.

Wakefield Tolbert:

gave protection and aid to Abu Nidal and Abu al-Abbas, notorious terrorists of world renown largely believed responsible for, respectively, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland

Lockerbie was a Libyan operation, probably in retaliation for the bombing of Tripoli which resulted in the death of Ghadafi's daughter, and had nothing to do with these two.

Wakefield Tolbert:

-----provided medical attention and safe have for expert bomb maker Abu Musab Zarqawi (a.k.a. The Decapitator)

Zarqawi was given safe haven in Kurdistan, an area at the time in a no-fly zone, and not under the control of Saddam Hussein's government. The story that Zarqawi was fitted with a prosthetic leg in Bagdad is more BS. When he was killed, Zarqawi had two legs.

Nice name, brother. I'm sure an intellectual like yourself would want to hear a rigorous debate of the issues, with the candidates delving into deep policy details. After all, wouldn't a clearly articulated McCain platform sway the voters of America, just as it has swayed you.

What you saw last night is an empty pantsuit. In answering the first question she proudly said she would duck Ifill's questions, which she proceeded to do. So she evaded the questions like a pro, just as Papa Bear O'Reilly would do.

Wake, did you learn NOTHING in college? Your narrow-mindedness and bigotry is astounding. I bet you're equally likely to claim that women could never have created calculus or written the Constitution. Honestly.

"He and the Democrats asked for an Exit Strategy about a day after the boots hit the sand. The sad reality is that the "long war" (which is what a fight against Islamism MUST be, as no short war will do the trick against such a Hydra like creature in multiple nations) is how you fight sometimes."

Exit strategies are a necessary part of warfare. We really should have had one ready the day before the boots hit the sand. It's simple prudence. And I hate to burst your little bubble, but we're not fighting a war against "Islamism".

Also, if we were planning on making this a Long War (and I personally hate the official use of that term), then we should have put the nation on an actual war footing. Tax increases, a draft, war bonds, fuel rationing, victory gardens, alliances, all of it! And a strategy not based on policing the petty squabbles of rival religious sects who have been fighting since the Eighth Century also might have helped. Engagement with neighboring countries on common issues would have really helped, even if we differ on other issues and even if Cheney thinks they're "evil". You know, actual realpolitik. What can we realistically accomplish, how much blood and treasure will it cost us, how long will it take and what will we get out of it?

These calculations were entirely lacking, and considering that this war was launched on our initiative and on our timetable, that was really inexcusable.

Wakefield, you magnificent bastard! Kudos. It is heartening to see that there is still a core to this country. As for you derisive gnats: buzz off. This guy has a lot in common with the people who made this country great. Go look in the mirror and think about that.

I never claimed the story about Decap man getting a false leg was true.

What was claimed was safe haven.

IN any case, this notion that "NO" connection betwixt Hussein and others (cuz he's a SECULARIST!!!!) is false, is, well...false....You picked out two of the list. Are the others false also???

Including not mentioned in detail the splatter bomb support for Palestinian terrorists who used their kids as human fodder?

And the information about WMD WAS, per factcheck.org, the information at the time. Additionally, the Duelfer Report, widely considered the last word on the topic, also said that while Hussein was LATER known not to have WMD, he wanted them back after his cat and mouse game with the US inspectors, which would not have even come to fruition without US power in the first place.

Dig?

Exit strategies are a necessary part of warfare. We really should have had one ready the day before the boots hit the sand. It's simple prudence. And I hate to burst your little bubble, but we're not fighting a war against "Islamism".

Oh fie. In the final analysis, yes. BUT.....

Not when you have historically low casualties and the issue is still not cleared up, the loonies could return en masse, and the war gets over-politicized as not "really" part of the war on terror (which Zarquawi and others on the front lines all have stated, including Petraeous).

Bin Laden said the strong horse gets the people. And he's banking on (should he be alive at this moment in some cave), that the corpulent mass of flesh sensuously whiling away the hours and the arguments about cutting and running, will suffer a lack of will and stomach.

Hope like hell he's wrong.

And a strategy not based on policing the petty squabbles of rival religious sects who have been fighting since the Eighth Century also might have helped.

We have no choice on the above. Sorry. We don't always get to choose our problems, whether in proxy or direct warfare. Ask the Brits about EXIT STATEGY in India.

They had none. But spared the world those very same squabbling sultanates and infighting crazy quilt Arabian fiefdoms and today bequeathed to us the world's most populous, relatively stable democracy rather than a blood sore.

AS to the war footing you propose, that is not yet necessary. The US military is more than able to put a hurting on most "servicing of targets" without the war bonds and celebrity drives--should the latter even offer to help. We've spend many trillions already on conventional warfare capability, and the decision to have anyone stand against this is primarily political, not operational. The issue is WILL, not means.

But thanks for your thoughtful input.

No one is more empty and artificial of a pure media myth and construct than B.H.O.

He is pure media inspired, ghostwritten fiction.

You bet.

"In the final analysis, yes."

No, always. You always plan for a way out. Without exception. If I ever took a team somewhere without having at least a basic outline of how I'd pull them out in the event that things went to shit, I'd deserve whatever I got.

And you fail to address my main point, that if we're going to stay longer, we need to do it in a way that doesn't destroy the U.S. economy in the process. Tax increases, conscription, fuel rationing, etc. An actual war footing, which will suck for American civilians. But then, war is supposed to suck for all involved. If the American people wish to continue this war, then they need to start facing the true cost of it. Period. Running the all-volunteer military into the dirt while paying for two wars on credit isn't going to work.

Notice that I didn't offer any bleeding-heart drivel about bombing Iraqi kittens or anything like that. :-)

"We have no choice on the above. Sorry. We don't always get to choose our problems, whether in proxy or direct warfare."

We certainly chose this one. We went very far out of our way to punch this tar baby. Unless there is an invading fleet about to land troops on our soil, we have a choice.

"AS to the war footing you propose, that is not yet necessary. The US military is more than able to put a hurting on most "servicing of targets" without the war bonds and celebrity drives... We've spend many trillions already on conventional warfare capability, and the decision to have anyone stand against this is primarily political, not operational. The issue is WILL, not means."

The capabilities of the U.S. military are severely strained right now. Our equipment isn't getting proper maintenance, our people see no future beyond repeated deployments to the Middle East for the rest of their lives, and the best and brightest are deserting the ranks in droves as a result. An actual war footing most certainly is necessary. The cost of war is not included in the regular budget, but has been handled by a series of deficit-funded emergency supplementals. This cannot continue. I'll keep deploying, but since you object to sacking up and paying higher taxes or maybe getting drafted to support the war you want, I'd argue that the deficit in will is yours.

But thank you for your thoughtful response. :-)

No, always. You always plan for a way out. Without exception. If I ever took a team somewhere without having at least a basic outline of how I'd pull them out in the event that things went to shit, I'd deserve whatever I got.

Thanks for not including hapless kittens or kids of phony studies from Lancet.

That makes the night air more refreshing.

I'll have to pick but one of the battles here, since so OBVIOUSLY this nation has literally wasted trillions of bucks on armements that can't quell tribal chieftans armed with homemade bombs. Now to the other:

Obviously things need to be wrapped up, but not when you have so many loose ends. I think we are closer now than several months ago and if the Iraqis insist they can handle the load, that's fine with me. They can and should if the logistics and capability and will are there. They should be by now, but then I'm not Gen. Petraeus and not out in the field.

What I meant by unseen contingencies is that tar baby from the befinning or not (which I don't think so, but that's another topic when it comes to arguments), we are not in a position now to just simply walk away. Are we to now resurrect the ghost of Hussein and place his minions back in power even though factcheck.org and Duelfer said he wanted his WMD's back but it turned out not at the time of invasion? I think not. Return Hussein to his glory days of Vegas splendor? No. Malaki might not be the first choice, and I agree with the liberals who used to chant that the whole SOB is our SOB is still an SOB are correct. You DO have to be careful whom you deal with. But what I meant by choices is something that can happen in war regardless of what you or I think are the "good wars" (so-called) and "good reasons (so-called) of sending young men and women into combat. There are no good "reasons" for war when the draped casket comes back in certain moments. We can all say in some philosophical sense that WWII was the "good war" that the forefathers fought and died in, but some say even that one was avoidable. The point is not my own revisionism or anyone else's, but the fact that even in those "good war" days of "doing things right from the Git-Go", it was NO such thing. Many mistakes were made in WWII and other wars as well. We just don't get these stories of useless death and horror in the face. One is reminded of the horrific carnage of the Philipines, the entire islands fought over by both sides in the Pacific over....NOTHING at all. The leaving behind of 70,000 troops by FDR to face imprisonment, beheading, sexual abuse, burning alive, and more. We have the monumental f***ups in Europe all the way to D-Day and beyond. The list goes on and on. Not because the US war planners and generals were morons. They weren't. But because not only did we face a very determined foe (as now, with no signs of giving in on most areas just yet--religion is a hard foe to defeat, especially the wonderous ways of Allah), but also because then, as now, we had hundreds of possible permuations of events and outcomes that cannot possibly be planned. I imagine that this moronic phrase "exit strategy" might have occured at the Bataan death march or at the Battle of the Bulge (in Germany, not my 40 year old tummy). But if it was considered to any serious intent, it certainly was not yapped at by politicians to the public, or batted around by generals in the fields or advocated by cheapjack writers like those of Slate. We had our Tokyo Roses in those days, and Lord Haw Haw from Britain, edging the Germans on and mocking the Tommys, but they didn't write for major papers. They also got prosecuted, when possible. Things went to "shit" quite a bit in those dark days. We just don't have many commentators to remind us of just how close things got. Ask the Soviets in those horrid winters on their own home turf when the blood and wind mixed at minus 40. And yet, my God, they continued fighting, to their credit, for the Motherland, just shy of the Germans seeing the outlines of the Kremlin walls.

I agree in part with your sentiment that more of a "war footing" could be present in this nation, and surely if the war is as necessary as claimed I'd agree that this psychological furrowed brow about sacriface could have been put before us better by Bush. Whom I'd agree never made the case in full.

But if the issue is important, for both tactical and mental reasons you can't just pull out, or say out loud you should or tip off the enemy about what historically low levels of pinpricking your fingernails with a mere 4000 or so killed is the threshold of sustainability or not. And if so--what are the lessons for the terror lords? Osama's statement about the corpulent elephant cobbling goodies on the couch but not having the nads for a sustained conflict are then true? He sure as hell might have thought so from the Marine-drag-by-the-heel-naked incidents in Somalia. But not about right now.

He misfired on that one. So it does no good to make his grandest wishes come true that the Great Satan is a hollow balloon who runs screaming from the little mice under the table.