My issue with staying their til Al Qeida is gone is it just could be a 100 years or so, there will be new members, and new factions. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Very well said, Nick. You touched on basically all of the points regarding Iraq that I believe to be true. If we were to pull out now, we'd be leaving Iraq defenseless from someone like Syria or Iran. As opposed to this war as I am, I completely agree that it'd be a stupid move to pull out now.

I honestly can't think of a reasonable solution to this problem. The president who pulls the troops out of Iraq will be seen as a hero, until 9/11 happens again. Except this time it might be from a nuclear power instead of a terror cell.

Now, on to the candidates.

John McCain...No. For pretty much all the reasons you gave, lol. The only thing I like about him is the fact that he was a prisoner of war, and thus he would be more compassionate toward the troops. But even then, lately he's been looking more and more like a George W Bush clone.

Hilary Clinton...Are you kidding? Seriously, the only reason she's being considered for the position of the most powerful person in the country is because her husband is Bill Clinton. And the only thing he ever did was bomb the hell out of Kosovo to get the heat off of him.

Barack Hussein Obama...I don't know. You notice I used his middle name, simply because there are vehement protests against using it. But aside from such a petty thing that only matters because they are making it matter, I don't agree with the majority of his policies. I just simply don't know. I didn't vote in the last election because I opposed both Bush and Kerry, so I don't really see myself doing any differently this time.

At this time I think Obama's the best choice, but really, when you're choosing between three turds, does it matter which one is the best?

Wow, Nick.

AS someone who has opposed the Iraq War since before Bush became President (I predicted three things when he got elected and got two of them. Much to my chagrin it wasn't the one that was best for the country -Predictions were 1. War with Iraq, 2. A recession and 3. A One-Term Presidency), I have to commend you for allowing your position to evolve.

The bottom line is that the war was wrong for so many reasons that we should never have allowed the war to start. The fact that it did start is a testament to our failure as American citizens to keep our government under control. In the end, it is up to us to finish the war.

One thing that I am worried about is the continued mischaracterization of the Democratic Candidates regarding ending the war. Code Pink might be screaming for us to get our troops out now, but most Democrats, and especially both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton know better. We do need to begin a withdrawal without delay but that does not mean every American Soldier out of Iraq on January 22, 2009.

Both candidates differ in their exact plans. On the good side, both of them understand any withdrawal will be under the direction and planned by military senior staff. Still, as President they will order the withdrawal to begin and set deadlines.

Hillary Clinton's plan is here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

Some major points:

Begin phased redeployment immediately

Secure stability in Iraq while we bring troops home

New, Intensive diplomatic efforst with regional powers

Barack says he's start withdrawing 1-2 brigades every two months until they are all gone, regional diplomacy and all that. Read more here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

I don't like his plan as much. Why? It's both too general (in some areas) and far too specific in others. How many troops to bring home in any given month needs to be a decision by military commanders. "Get them redeployed within the next 16 months, beginning some withdrawal immediately" are appropriate orders for a Commander-In-Chief to give. Leave the specifics up to the military officers who have the experience and the training to get it done right.

People harp on Hillary because she's 'the wife' of a former President, with the implication that just because she was a First Lady she's incapable of being President. I've got some news for these folks.

Bill Clinton is a smart man.

Hillary's smarter.

I am still opposed to the war, I have been from the start. I wasn't able to vote against Bush the first time, but I did the second. Anyway, I believe the United States will be at war with Iran in the future regardless of the outcome of the war in Iraq. I do believe that Iraq will fall regardless of the outcome of the war as well - it's just the region of the world that isn't ever going to be a true democracy like Bush wants. It's the only reason we're in there now, to form an established democracy. As far as deployment, it shouldn't be abrupt, but it should be happening. Our economy is suffering. We the US decided to take action unilaterally so the burden is on us to turn a country out at all the costs of not having significant help. So the argument really isn't with senators and the way they voted we should have had a president who understood that he needed Allied help from the beginning. Authorization doesn't mean he should step right in to a war, it only gives him the right to. He chose a unilateral approach and now we're paying for it.

As far as eradication of Terrorism is concerned, that won't happen.

To slightly defend McCain (I know shocking), I believe he meant that we'll always be stationed in Iraq. We have military stationed in many parts of the world, I doubt he meant war, just us being established there for a hundred years is going to happen. But I'm still not going to vote for him.

Oh and I am beyond tired of hearing that Hilary Clinton cannot be president for the sole reason she is a first lady, married to Bill Clinton. She isn't carrying around his baggage, she has her own brain and ideas, her own qualifications. If that's the only reason people have for not voting for her then they shouldn't ever vote for president as their views are screwed. Just like the people that won't vote for Obama because of his name or skin color.

Well, personally I've been opposed to the war since before it started and I was at no point ever in favour of it.

I'm probably not the person to talk to about this, but personally I'm not a fan of using the Constitution as the inerrant, unevolving authority for today's decisions. To me that's exactly the same as what many fundamentalist Christians do with the Bible. I piss off a lot of Christians and a lot of Americans (and a lot of Christian Americans ), but personally I think both documents are wonderful and still offer much inspiration, but I just can't get behind having them be the 'final word' because put simply we live in much different times and the situations are much different.

Far be it from me to presume to speak for God or our founding fathers, but it's my hunch that they would want us to evolve with the times and to make the best moral and political decisions we can make in today's context. Many of the major concerns of the time of conception of these documents just aren't a 'big deal' anymore, and quite a few others that ARE a big deal in today's world just weren't anywhere on the radar back then. A third and major segment is the issues which have always been, and will always be relevant, and for that I say use these documents as a guide. However, I also say that we mustn't forget that specificsare different, even if situations are fundamentally the same, and as such we must interpret these documents and leave plenty of room for them to grow and evolve into today's world.

To be very specific about the situation described, the speed of communication and war are worlds away from what they were when the constitution was written. Back then they may have had time to do a laborious evaluation and voting, but today we simply might not. We're also getting and receiving information infinitely more quickly. It's just a different world we live in.

I do not support congresses decision, but I do support the procedure and the principle that they had the right to do it as they did in violation of the Constitution in this case.

Of course you already acknowledge these points and state that you didn't personally agree, and I can definitely respect that, and I'm sure you can understand my position as I can understand yours.

Anyway though, despite the fact that I can't quite get behind the sentiment of your blog as it stands, I have to say it's extremely insightful, factually accurate, and a lot of fun to read

I also think the message is positive and hopeful, and that I can support

Take care and have an awesome day!

Kevin