So, how much are you willing to spend to stay in Iraq? At $12 Billion/month ($144 Billion/year), how many years are you willing to pump borrowed money into that black hole?

How many lives are you willing to expend to continue to wage war in a place where 71% of Americans consider ill advised? How many more soldiers are you willing to have return maimed and their lives literally ruined by a war which only has death and ruin as its sole product?

John McCain says that the United States should stay for up to 100 years as long as no American military personnel are injured. With violence again beginning to increase, the question to ask is: Will it ever end?

The Bush Administration wants to pass it on to the next administration (Republican or Democrat) and wash their hands of the whole mess. Under the urging of Bush/Cheney, they would like to expand the conflict to Iran.

Perhaps you would want to have your sons and daughters go fight and die in Bush's War, but I sincerely doubt many Americans see that as a viable option for their children and loved ones. There is no honor it that.

Uh, the Taliban are still alive and kicking btw. While we're at it, how many innocent people have been killed by so called "smart bombs"? Oh, wait they're euphemistically called "collateral damage", they don't count. Excuse me, support the troops. Now on to staying the course. Hitler stayed the course, and the Red Army chased him all the way back to Berlin; and he wanted Thousand Year Reich. Far shorter the McSames hundred years war (brain fizzling, there has already been a Hundred Years War, copyright violation!).

The DHS/CBP reports that with $0.5B per year for the next 20 years we can more than adequately secure our borders with modern, up-to-date monitoring at new Border Stations that include nuclear detection devices. $0.5B for 20 years is less than one month's expenditures in Iraq. Which do you think will keep us safer?

. . . once again someone tries to tie them together. They're two different issues. As has been demonstrated many times over, Iraq had no connection with the events of September 11, 2001.

Going after the people who attacked us is one thing. The action in Afghanistan to respond to that attack was perfectly justified and justifiable. Using that attack as an excuse to invade and occupy another country is not. The administration should have concentrated the country's resources where they belonged, and pursued that action to its conclusion. In Afghanistan. NOT Iraq.

Again, the Bushian myth is here perpetrated that it was Saddam Hussein's regime that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. The two largest US military actions in the past forty years are both abject failures--the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. There will be those that will continue to defend both wars, but this will not change the fact that they were mistakes. Both led to the deaths of countless upon countless of innocent people, neither have achieved their stated objective, and billions upon billions of dollars were wasted (half of all tax dollars at the height of Vietnam went to funding the war).

Mr. Adair is disturbed by Don Gales editorial? I'm disturbed by the idea that there might be people in my home state who would agree with Adair. Don't let his claim to "extensive reading" fool you. Go youself to a library or bookstore and read a few books that have been published on this current war so that you find out what our tares our elected leaders have sown by this war in Iraq.

They kill civilians, women and children with impunity and without remorse, reference Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Hamburg etc.????

ADAIR are you willing to send your children to stay the course, your grandchildren? Do you have any family members fighting this useless illegal war? This war is not a war of good purpose and you are kidding only yourself if your think so. Think of all the Iraqis suffering for the bullheaded BUSH and CHeney greed -- You believe in staying the course go enlist or make sure your family members stay the course in uniform

And how is anything we've done in Iraq up to this point the 'war on terror'?
Do you think the $6500 or so per second we spend on this 'war' is returning dividends we could not get in some other way?
This is nuts.

Brent Adair is correct. No one likes this war but to leave now would be disastrous.

While you're at it "jce," don't forget Pearl Harbor, the Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March, Auschwitz, the seige of Leningrad, Matthausen, Bergen-Belsen, the Blitz of London, Josef Mengele, Tojo, Hirohito, I could go on. War is evil--no matter the prize.

It is truly sad to realize that there are STILL some who forecast a positive end to this Vietnam-like quagmire and are oblivious to the truck bearing down on them in the form of a very restless and anxious America turning out in record numbers to insure we do NOT "stay the course."

If you want to stay the course in Iraq, vote McCain. If you want us to get out vote Obama.

In accordance with other sensible people here, I must re-affirm the verity that neither Saddam Hussein, nor the Ba'ath Party, nor any citizens of Iraq have been shown to have had the slightest connection to terrorist attacks against the United States or its interests abroad.

It may be argued that none of this matters now, and we must deal with the situation that has been created. This is a reasonable enough position. But in judging the efficacy of our military engagement in the Middle East, it must be remembered prior to the U.S. occupation, Iraq was amongst the least hospitable Mesopotamian countries for terrorists. If our aim was really to root out Muslim terrorists we'd have been better served to have marched into the Republic of Georgia.

Brent, kudos on your thoughful true points on Gales rant. Mistakes were made in this war, as there were in all wars.

We must change course - far too much is at stake.

Like jobs. Paychecks. Security.

The second front in Iraq was bound to be opened once we went into Afghanistan. Afghanistan alone is indefensible, as all other occupying troops in the country can attest over the canturies. The mountains on the border with Pakistan creates the perfect high ground for guerilla insurgents to use for attack. Iraq was the militarily stategic battlefield for reason too numerous to cite here. If we subdue most insurgency we will probably be there 100 years. Or of course we could have just have laid back like a wounded mangy cow and let them continuously have at us, as they had been doing for decades. They bombed the Pentagon, for heaven sakes, the brains of our military. If we weren't going to do anything but shake out finger at them, then let us disband the military and give it up to our enemies.

Even the president didn't "stay the course". He strayed. Think of the greater damage we could have done to this "war" on terror, if he had kept his promise -- if he had captured and brought to justice Osama Bin Laden.

Lionheart - it was an eloquent attempt to try to justify the occupation of Iraq but I'm not buying it. You have tried to geographically link two countries that have no common border. And when you say "They bombed the Pentagon..." to whom are you referring. The terrorists who perpetrated the terrible acts of 911 were Saudis for the most part, being sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan. We rightfully invaded Afghanistan but before we achieved our objective (to capture bin Laden) we diverted our attention to Iraq (for what reason?) Saddam Hussein was captured in a rat hole, where he belonged, four and a half years ago. His countrymen hung him for his despicable crimes. So where does that leave us? No bin Laden, more unrest in the middle east than ever, our standing as the world's moral leader gone, and every month we spend $14B to maintain that insanity. 4000+ of our brave soldiers are dead along with thousands of civilians. And you want to continue this madness? Why?

The writer's points are so outdated as to be laughable. Are you sure it wasn't postmarked 2003? Lionheart must think in terms of mammals. Wounded mangy cow? Please. Just keep saying slowly to yourself "No reason to attack Iraq. No reason to......"

At the start of the War against WMD; I mean to liberate Iraqi, Bush told us this war would cost 30 billion. This would be paid back with interest from the sell of oil.

A evil civil servant was fired when he leaked out that the war would cost 60 billion. Even this number looks ridiculously small today.

We have scandals de jour from the Bush administration. Bush lost any credibility he had.

I do know Turkey's war in Iraq isn't being reported much in America. Turkey is fighting Kurds in Iraq. This war is rapidly becoming a regional conflict.

As a veteran, I have a big ax to grid with conservatives. You claim not to like entitlement programs. You also say you support the sacrifice our troops are making. You want to stay the course. Then, why don't you stop thinking war is an entitlement program and start paying for it!

I am amazed at how quickly the US is fading as a power in the world. Bush and his regime have ruined our standing in the world, wrecked our ecomony with borrowed money from China to fund the immoral war. Just as Great Britain's diminished as a superpower over a century ago by overextending their empire. We fail to learn from history. Keep on living in your denial. "Stay the Course" This is a course to ruin.

"Vote your ideals | 8:40 a.m."

Obama won't say when he'll exit Iraq. He's been asked by his primary opponents and he would not give a definitive answer. He says he'll have to see what the situation is first and then make assessments on how best to end the conflict. He doesn't want a rapid US exit to allow al Queda to establish a stronghold in Iraq, and has said that should massive genocide break out after we leave he would send troops back in.

Which is pretty much what President Bush has done for 5 years now.

That's what you call change?

Every single monetary argument on this comment board was used in 1942.

to Gig 10:51, the US has been fading since Vietnam. If we would actually declare war, rather than authorizing action, that could help. The current regime did not ruin our standing, that was started long ago.

"Gig | 10:51 a.m. "

Great Britain declined as a superpower because we sat back and allowed them to be bombed to smithereens by Germany.

Saddam had violated his treaty with us, remember. We had a war with him once. And a treaty with certain conditions. I suppose we could have just let that slide. However, our ability to respond to attacks because of a lack of bases in the middle east, made us a continuing sitting duck. Iraq is on one side of Iran and Afghanistan is on the other. Iran is a very dangerous enemy who declared war on us in the 70s, occupying our embassy and taking hostages for years. Chasing Osama into Pakistan would be suicidal. Pakistan has a huge disciplined military, 170 million muslims and nuclear weapons. You must choose and fight the wars you can win.

If I were in charge. Woe to our enemies. I would not have put our troops on the ground, until we had made soup of our enemies from the air. If we would get our own energy supplies, from the continental shelf on both our coasts and from the artic, we wouldn't have to even look at the middle east. The country needs time to develop alternative energy and the hippy-dippy utopia energies aren't going to cut it.

Lies, and the Lying Liars that Tell Them.

A number of weeks ago FactCheck noted that Senator McCain's "100 years" quote was being twisted for partisan gain by the Democratic Party.

True to form, those DNC lies are being parroted on this forum.

To Lewt: Perhaps I should have said a wounded mangy eagle who can not longer fly or defend itself.

Continuing military strategy. I would have forced France to let us use their airfield. Turkey I would have saved for another day for their betrayal. The Europeans are now electing hardboiled right wing politician, because they are up to their eyeballs in alligators. If the current European politicians had been in power when we needed to act in the middle east, we wouldn't have had to put our finest on the ground in that God-forsaken dust bowl.

Of course, some might think we should just have given Isreal to the muslim to tear apart for a while and satisfy their blood lust and let us go for a decade or so. (After all, the Isrealites charge compound interest and have been ruthless in their own interests) Being facicious of course.

It's a War on Terror.

From day one the Bush Administration maintained that any country harboring or supporting terrorists were to be treated as the terrorists themselves.

Iraq was the number one terrorist country in terms of aggression, history and use of WMD's. Not to mention the fact that they paid thousands of dollars as incentives to suicide bombers, attempted to assassinate our former president, and reneged on every single mandate given them by the United Nations for over a decade.

And add mass genocide to the list - which has long been reason #1 for UN and world action against rogue countries.

Any attempt to say that there is no link between Iraq and terror is a lie.

To 100 years -
A simple youtube search using the words John McCain and 100 years will reveal the GOP hopeful saying EXACTLY what he said.

But you should be awarded a neo-red plaque for distinguished service "100 years." :>

Staying the course is bankrupting our country while increasing the buying power of the powers that be.

And the stupid neo-reds that voted the Bush/Cheney duo into power are going right along with it.

You ridiculously ignorant neo-red fools!

Why do you suppose it is that people are turning out in record numbers and registering as Democrats?

You really ought to think about listening to some music rather than the lies Limbaugh is telling you.

Superpower,

Britain started to fade long before WWII. Getting bogged down in Iraq, India and other colonies after WWI precipitated the downfall. They lost their treasury trying to maintain their many holdings.

"see for yourself | 11:44 a.m."

A simple google search for the FactCheck website will show you how your youtube video is being used by the Lying Liars.

Or you could just keep reading ThinkProgress. Whatever.

Adair is a hopeless case of Bushonomics! This so-called war on terror was government-contrived! Look at Cheney -- he profited handsomely from this phony war on terror! This war has cost the nation close to a trillion dollars, many thousands of deaths, broken families, crippled vets, over 100,000 civilian deaths, and Adair has the nerve to "stay the course"? Absurd to the umpteenth degree! Get a life, Adair - before lecturing us!

I've come to the conclusion that making comments on this blog doesn't accomplish much; we mostly talk past each other. I might make a suggestion however, that the writer read Ron Paul's new book "The Revolution." It's #1 at Amazon, and it says things better on the foreign policy front than I can.

Dear Anonymous 12:03 -
I realize these must be tough times for neocons but folding your arms and/or sticking your fingers in your ears is never going to erase the fact that your man John McCain most definitely said (as proven) "...the Iraq war may take 100 years..."

Try accepting facts (even they come from "the drive-by media") as neocon guru, Rush Limbaugh puts it.

To Lew Jeppson: I admire Ron Paul. A man of principle. We need Ron Paul to speak in the cacaphony. Ron Paul's positions would definitely have been my own back in the 60s and 70s. I just feel we have gone too far and the world is too intertwined for his positions to be practical today. Too bad, but we took a different road long ago and the bridge is washed out behind us. Perhaps there was no other road we could have taken.

"facts are fact - accept them | 12:31 p.m."

Thanks for proving that you do get your "facts" from the DNC.

You write, "the fact that your man John McCain most definitely said (as proven) "...the Iraq war may take 100 years..."

Which is doing exactly what your boys at the DNC have done with their ads - that is, parsed quotes and used fear to get money and votes.

Here's what he really said:

"Maybe a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

FactCheck notes that both Hillary and Obama plan on leaving troops in Iraq in a combat role even after they are elected.

So you're right, facts are facts. And they're very enlightening.

I guess all will become crystal-clear come November, won't it?

Meanwhile, people registering as Democrats in the primaries and caucuses are breaking all-time records.

Very interesting, isn't it?

"interesting fact | 1:42 p.m. "

There you go, you lover of facts you!

When you're proven wrong, just change the subject!

What do you mean "we didn't start it but we must finish it?" Weren't you there? Don't you remember the whole debate about pre-emptive war? Of course we started it--it wasn't Iraq that bombed us on 9/11.

I think you're getting the Iraq War mixed up with Bush's "War on Terror," whatever that's supposed to be.

No, no, no, my neo-red friend.

Nothing has been changed.

It is well-documented that Democrats are registering in record-breaking numbers to vote.

See you back here in November. :>

To "Anonymous | 2:37 p.m." have you taken into account Rush's "Operation Chaos"?

Also, just because somebody registers Democrat, it doesn't prevent them from voting Republican in the general election.

November will be interesting.

Again, I hope that whatever political party wins the Presidency DOES NOT have control of congress.

You are right YouGo.

Nobody really knows what might happen between now and November.

All I can say is that I have a huge hunch of what party may be taking over. The recent drastic change in the House and Senate that prompted Mr. Bush to say, "we really got our butts kicked" may give a clue to what may be in store. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Victory is almost just around the corner, we must stay the course and not cut and run. We need to vote for McCain.

Victory is 100 years away (says McCain) we cannot afford to stay the course.

The author wrote, "The war on terror is indeed a nightmare, and we have had people who have done unspeakable things, but nothing like what the terrorists have done. They kill civilians, women and children...Our level of moral behavior is much higher. We've never flown jetliners filled with innocent people into skyscrapers filled with innocent people."

No, we just bomb cities with innocent people still there and justify it by saying that it will bring a war to an end. So I guess that flying a plane into a building and killing a few thousand people is far worst than us deciding to destroy cities in killing over 200,000 innocent people.

He then goes on to say, "We must not forget that this was initiated by the terrorists. We did not start it, but we must finish it."

Really? You believe that we didn't start this in the 1980's" If you do I suggest you take a long hard look at our foreign policy over the last several decades before making statements about things you have no knowledge of. Had we done what Charlie Wilson wanted and re-built Afghanistan after giving arms to terrorists we wouldn't be in this situation.

ADAIR -- pay attention ! Don Gale was critiquing the war in Iraq. At the time the Taliban was already being chased in Afghanistan. Then we took our eyes off the ball and started an entirely unrelated war in a place that had nothing to do with the Taliban or the act of terrorism that robbed America of it's senses.

Our years in Iraq have seen incompetence perfected to the level of performance art never before witnessed on the international stage by a conquororing country.

Try staying on topic for the next rant.