Even if you did think Gulf War II was a mistake, it’s sort of like thinking purchasing your house was a mistake. Now you’re losing money on it so do you ride it out until the market picks back up or do you foreclose on it and abandon it to cut your losses?

The point is, it is written and it is done. The situation now is do we see what happens and try to help the Iraqis a little more, or do we just pull out and leave them to their own devices? Thinking it was a mistake is now a perspective and an opinion on history because it has already happened and is happening.

In regards to  Hank’s comment "Clearly, if you think the War in Iraq is a mistake, Obama is your man.’

Less and less do Obama’s own statements  support that contention Hank.

Of course, more and more I am not sure where Obama stands nor where he will end up.

From Reuters: " Obama says he would begin a pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq shortly after taking office. His plan calls for the removal of one or two brigades a month which would allow a pullout of combat troops to be completed within 16 months.The first-term Illinois senator said he told Zebari that if he wins the White House, "an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that’s been made in Iraq, that we won’t act precipitously."

So he is not stuck on a  16 month timetable….or is he?

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

It would be good if both sides learned to stop distorting their opponents’s claims and motives.

Clearly, if you think the War in Iraq is a mistake, Obama is your man.

Clearly, if you think the War in Iraq is a necessary thing, McCain is your man. 

Myself, No, I don’t think Obama is a secret Muslim.  I think he is a Patriot, who loves his country, and approaches problems from a left of center point of view. 

 conventional liberal? yes, and about time. A liberal, not a progressive or a Third Way-er or a Republican Lite. Liberal, capital L, is exactly what we need now and we are going to get it. You can move to Canada if you don’t like it.

Hah! There is nothing wrong with being a conventional liberal — it’s a valid point of view. Of course, conventional liberals rarely, if ever, run as "conventional liberals," because it alienates people in the middle.

kevin, you arent right wing. you might think you are, just like i think im a lefty moonbat sometimes. but unfirtunately we are both much too reasonable to delude urselves with the glory of extremism. at the end of the day, its all meh to us.

Bastard.

Since Obama is excatly right on Afghanistan, and has basiclaly given himself cover to stay in Iraq or withdraw based on hs judgement rather than rush to a decision (and in fact demonstrated his independence from the netroots already numerous times), and above all strikes exactly the right pose towards Iran (diplomacy first, nothing off the table), from where I sit he is the striongest candidate on foreign policy by far. Again, ya’ll can disagree, but we tried it your way and got a grade-A clusterfrack. And I say that as someone who is largely against withdrawal.

a conventional liberal? yes, and about time. A liberal, not a progressive or a Third Way-er or a Republican Lite. Liberal, capital L, is exactly what we need now and we are going to get it. You can move to Canada if you don’t like it.

as far as raising taxes goes, i dont think mccain’s promise the moon strategy is exactly viable. anyway the dems have a far better record of fiscal restraint than the GOP does – its the Blue Dogs who you shoudl be cheering on here. Its a congressional issue, not a presidential one.

The outrage to it seems to be coming from two camps:

1) Lefties who are outraged that their guy is being stereotyped.

2) Righties who feel it’s them who’re being stereotyped.

Check yourself, if you’re outraged, which one are you? :-)

Defending the indefensible New Yorker magazine cover (the actual article, though,  is pretty good).

Can you imagine if that exact cover graced the front of, say, National Review? Daily Kos and the left and center and the media would be outraged at the slander/defamation of Obama (and rightfully so).

So,  the East Coast liberals at the New Yorker get a free pass at slandering the opponents of Obama with a false characture that nobody made?!!?

The irony, of course, is that most folks won’t get the "in joke" and think that the New Yorker is, in fact, portraying Obama as a flag-burning, Osama-loving Muslim. (Obama’s campaign has asserted this.)

Again, returning to first principles: Most people who oppose Obama don’t do so, because he’s black, or has a funny name, or has a Muslim father.

Most people that I know who oppose Obama think he’s:

1)  inexperienced

2) weak on defense and foreign policy

3)  a conventional liberal, despite an attractive veneer

4) gonna raise taxes, which always, always, always, hurts the middle class earner, even if targeted against the rich, because the rich HIRE us and when they are taxed, they pass on the increased costs downstream. (But, that’s a separate issue, forgive me for straying).

Bottom Line: The coy, coquettish, infinitely wise, latte’ drinking, Gucci-loafer wearing, erudite, pointy-heads at the New Yorker probably just caused a net hit on the Obama campaign, by clumsily and falsely trying to smear his critics. How clever:)

HB

I’m really confused.

… or maybe you need to step away from the caricature and actually look at the right-wingers.