A whole year early at that????? Huuummm.....that WILL free up troops for Afganistan..but I'm pretty sure that's not why the current Iraqi government wants us gone! Our "friends" want us gone and our "enemies" want us to stay? I tell ya, it's a whole different culture!

Since we should not have been there anyway it is a good thing.

McCain would have found a way to keep our troops rebuilding Iraq!

Notice the wingnuts doen't want to talk about why Iraq government wants to hold a referendum to kick U.S. out early?? Why is that??? Boy, this should be BIG news, but wingnuts only want to get nasty about comments about Novak's death....somebody will surely bless his soul?

PatIowa:

A whole year early at that????? Huuummm.....that WILL free up troops for Afganistan..but I'm pretty sure that's not why the current Iraqi government wants us gone! Our "friends" want us gone and our "enemies" want us to stay? I tell ya, it's a whole different culture!

With US forces gone the nation of Iraq can use a far heavier-handed approach to quelling violence.

Next Question?

LOL! So why did Bush keep wasting tax dollars over there?

U.S. military?? Don't you mean a heavily hand against the Sunni's, and those the current government wants gone...no more silly attempts to "unify" and be a democracy?? Doesn't that make the entire Bush policy in Iraq a farce? Not to mention all the U.S. taxpayer money still "floating" around in Iraq controlled by the current regime?

Johnclyde:

LOL! So why did Bush keep wasting tax dollars over there?

I really do not know! I never have figured out what the actual rationale was for the war. And I have done a fair bit of research on the subject.

The only explanation that made sense to me was that Bush wanted to show Saddam who was boss after Saddam tried to kill his daddy (George H. W. Bush).

It was a continuation of the Gulf war. Saddam violated the cease fire agreement for almost 12 years. He was a threat becuase he had not destroyed his pre-war inventory of chemical weapons and we beleived he was making more chemical weapons too. That combined witht he fact we are in a post 9-11 world and you have more than enough valid reasons (evenafter discounting the bad intelligence regarding WMDs) to go to war.

Of course we probably define "valid reasons" differently. I think that Korea and vietnam were good Ideas (we never should have let the UN run the show in Korea) and that we should have ignored the hippies protesting the Vietnam war and ramped up the Arclight and linbacker missions to cut the enemies will to fight. General Jiap said the linbacker missions would have forced the north to give up if we had continued for another 3 months.

He wanted to show Daddy that he was a much MUCH better man then Daddy was.....by going to Bagdad and "finishing" what his father "couldn't complete"! Also Cheney wanted to "win" the fight he fought in 1992, when Colin Powell, Schultz and Bush I didn't go with Dicks "hardline" about taking out Saddam! And what did they both prove?? That Dubya ain't even half the man his Daddy was,and Cheney was wrong in '92 and WRONG in '03!

about privatized war on the cheap were valid!

oh..riiight Pete, and why exactly where we in Vietnam anyway?? And "forced the N. Vietnamese" to give up?? You mean like the French "forced'em"? or the Japs "forced'em"?? How far do you think McArthur would have got in fighting the Chinese for Korea?? Even with nukes? and to what end exactly?