Romney is leaving the race, he says, because he needs to end republican in fighting, to make sure that the terrorists don't prevail. By terrorists, he of course is referring to the democrats in November. That seems to be the gist of his rationalization.

What with all this primary business, we're apparently forgetting that a vote for the democrats is a vote for Islamic terrorism. Stay scared, stay divided. Well, it's not the note I would choose to go out on, but hey, he wasn't getting my vote anyways. I'm voting for the terrorists.

Seriously, how many elections are we going to have with this as the platform of the right? Obama and Clinton have very sensible policies for the war and are actually able to define a victory outcome - the peaceful withdrawal of US troops from a stable Iraq. The fact that they aren't advocating an open-ended occupation in which Maliki can pull our strings and saddle our soldiers with his government's responsibilities (while he and his party line their pockets) doesn't exactly strike me as a defeat for us in a wider war that requires us to promote an effective government in Iraq. The war on terror is far bigger than one country, and its time we started fighting it without one hand tied behind our backs.

Oh, but the fact that Clinton and Obama have consistently funded the war anyway doesn't change the fact that they're on bin laden's side. And the fact that Obama has clearly stated his willingness to use american power in Pakistan to go after Bin Laden is clearly a wimpy, defeatist thing to say.

Rudy's campaign couldn't keep us scared, and McCain isn't going to inspire us to fight "other wars" by pushing for a wasteful 100 years of occupation in Iraq. But hey, maybe Mitt's reminder that democrats all want your children to grow up like those kids in that youtube terrorist video will scare this nation straight. Do as Mitt says, and don't trust 50% of Americans (Or whatever majority vote in Obama come November).

I do hope that the fear tactic has run its course. You would think, and hope, that 6.5 years after 9/11, most people could approach the terrorist problem rationally so that we can devise cost-effective strategies as opposed to trillion dollar failed invasions.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I think the scare tactic will fall flat this November.

I don't think there is a republican one that is advocating 100 years in Iraq, but because it is something a democrat said it has got to be true, no reason to verify if it was actually said.

The reason Obama and Clinton scare me is because they are pulling troops out day one. They both have said this. Day one. Neither has ever specified that Iraq would be stable before they pulled troops out. They are pulling them out, day one.

If you think they are going to wait for a stable Iraq, please visit their websites. You will not find that information there.

Maybe you were just confusing it with what republicans have said all along. As soon as Iraq is stable, troops are coming home.

Whether you think we should have gone to war with Iraq is irrelevant now. We are there, now we need to look for the safest way out and that is with a stable, secure Iraq. That happens after time and according to the military personnel on the ground; not me or you or anyone over here in the comfort of our own homes and beds not sacrificing a thing.

I don't trust the GOP on any issue, They thought lack of oversight was good, let GWB & Cheney run the show. As back benchers the GOP may have a place,( they will squeal, throw stones, and build glass houses)

The national debt is due mostly to "CONSERVATIVE" fiscal policies. The only administration to reverse the trend was politcally punished, and impeached.

The terrorist were recruited & armed by Ron, AKA "Freedom Fighters".

The Presidents that have damaged the nation (Ron & Shrub) are getting off scot free. (History may not be so kind)

1. FEAR Global Warming. It's coming soon to a city near you. Your city, in fact. While fearing Global Warming, be like Al Gore. Keep consuming. Big Time. Just buy yourself a nice little Carbon Credits Card.

2. FEAR the loss of social "security" (sic). Yes, only higher taxes for "the rich" (not George Soros, not John Kerry, not Ted Kennedy, not John Edwards, not Diane Feinstein, not Jon Corzine, not the Hollywood Limousine Liberals, you silly, ONLY the "REPUG" Rich)

3. FEAR lack of medical insurance. Here comes a big bad sniffle now.

4. FEAR the wrath of everybody in the world who hates us.

5. FEAR the Lords Prayer in school.

6. FEAR Rush Limbaugh. Shut Rush up, but let Ward Churchill continue to spew bile and call that "free speech."

7. FEAR facts. Fight back with one-liners, Democrat Talking Points.

Here are Democrats' favorites:

"It's my body, it's my choice." (Don't ask the baby or its father.)

"Bush lied, troops died." (This is al Qaeda's favorite)

"It's Bush's war." (Hillary voted for it. So did John Kerry. And John Edwards. And even Harry "we've lost in Iraq" Reid.)

"Change" (Change to even more defeat and retreat, more socialism, higher taxes, more oppressive federal government, free medical care, free lunch, free housing and cars and child care. No need to work. That will "change" too.)

"You're stupid." ("I've always thought that men and women were exactly equal, if not more so." - Al Gore, who flunked out of Vanderbilt divinity school)

<link>

It is a civil war. We are not there defending Iraqis against Al Qaeda. We are in the middle between Iraqi Shiia and Iraqi Sunnis shooting at each other. When they tire of the killing, they will stop.

The only way we can change that is to take sides and help the Shiia kill the Sunni.

Taking troops out of Iraq will be a good thing to do starting in 2009. To begin with, the #of troops in the surge itself is designed to come down at that point, due to the realities of manpower constraints. So even if McCain wins, some troops come home his first year in office.

Secondly, the surge has proven that tactics, not numbers, matter more in Iraq. 30,000 more troops? They helped, no doubt, but not as much as the fact that we shifted to an aggressive counterinsurgency strategy, convinced Anbar Sunni's to turn on AQI. Also, Sadr decided to call a ceasefire, and we began negotiating under the table with Iran over EFP's, which have decreased. In a year, if we aren't ready to start pulling out, then the surge will have been a failure. And the surge was not a failure, it has been a success for the aforementioned reasons.

Staying in Iraq at that point will mean 1 of 2 things. Either things will have gotten worse for unforeseen reasons, and if so - having come off this lull in violence - things truly will be irreversable for the worst. Or, if we stay, it will be because of mission creep, beyond our stated goals of stabilization.

Regardless, the next and last step is to reform the Iraqi government to make it an equitable and more functional system - not the bureaucratic religio-mafia that it is today. This means a more federalized system, which is only going to happen if regional authorities are empowered, which will only happen if we begin drawing back.

We can stay in Iraq and fight terrorists as long as we want. Sad fact: there will always be some level of Al-Qaida related terrorists in Iraq. We've done quite well at taking out their central infrastructure, and hopefully things go well in Mosul. But we can stay there for a decade and watch foreign fighters from the entire region come in and detonate themselves. At some point, you need to declare victory and get out. That time period will be during the next presidential administration, regardless of who they are.

"The terrorist were recruited & armed by Ron, AKA "Freedom Fighters"."

Revisionist twaddle, conflating US support for the Afghan muj (which became policy under Carter, by the way) with the non-Afghan Arab "fighters" (most of them weren't) who flocked to Pakistan so they could feel good about helping their brothers in jihad.

But then again, I hardly expect much grasp of the facts from somebody who seems to "think" that the Clinton Administration ever paid down the debt.

<link>

Carter started arming the Afghans. Reagan started giving them Stingers. Both Carter and Reagan were right to help them. When the Russians withdrew we were wrong to walk away.

You should learn how to use primary research sources.

<link>

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

You obviously don't see the difference between internal and external debt. By buying back external debt, Clinton saved paying interest to Japan and China.

Your reading comprehension (as well as your manners) still could use some work.

Your endless and wholly-predictable childish partisan spin is noted. The simple, clear, and incontrovertible fact remains that the national debt rose every year of the Clinton Administration. Your suggestion that intergovernmental holdings don't pay interest is silly even by your "standards."

Flail on; you are re-re-dismissed.

Of course your spin is entirely non-partisan and adult.....dream on.

well, my thread has deteriorated to a preschool recess fight. How cute.

I'm just going to reiterate the only thing I intended to say here -

Be smart, not afraid, and don't listen to Mitt Romney. (I'm sure we'll see him again in 2012, and if the last four years have been any indication, democrats will still be terrorists at that point, so war conservatives, don't worry. Just be afraid.)

"...democrats will still be terrorists at that point, so war conservatives, don't worry. Just be afraid"

This from a poster whimpering about how "my thread has deteriorated to a preschool recess fight"

Beautiful.