[slevdogg]

You reek of neo-conservatism. So we didn't invade Iraq to "fight the terrorists" as Bush and his cronies said, but to give them freedom? Should we invade every country whose citizens we do not consider to be free? Who should be next? Cuba? Iran? Russia? Almost all 47 countries in Africa? China? Should we just occupy every sovereign nation on the face of the planet? Should we take over the oceans? Heck, why not wrest Antarctica from international control and just take it for ourselves.

Iraq has been a colossal failure. We were lied into Iraq under the march to war beat following 9/11, while completely ignoring those who actually attacked us. Bush and Co. had decided long before 9/11 that he wanted to invade Iraq, and he used 9/11 to sell the country on it. The point of the so-called "surge" was to allow for political reconciliation. We're not seeing any real political reconciliation. Remember the 18 surge benchmarks? Wonder why the White House never talks about those anymore? Because by their own pre-defined metrics of success in Iraq they have failed. So now they are creating their own definitions of success as they go. They're constantly moving the goal posts of success, as well as the reason we are there. They're now being reduced to saying that we're there because oil will skyrocket if we leave.

I could literally write a bleeping book in response to your post, but I don't have the time. I'll leave it at this for now.

And keep it civil. I think that you're personal beliefs and those of the Republican party are whacked, but I won't reduce myself to namecalling as you have. Dumbocrats? Calling someone a fool for voting for a Democrat? Grow up and respect differences in opinions. That's freedom, no war required.