Will the main issue in 2004 be: "How Can We Get Out of Iraq?"

[Jacobin]

Bush*, the neo-cons, the NYT, the WP have all joined hands to dive this country off the cliff into the giant tar pit of Iraq ostensibly to DestroyWMD/BringDemocracyToTheM.E./GetRidOfSaddam/ but really to add a few more years of oil to our petroleum addicted economy.

By the summer of 2004, more billions will have been spent than any of the fantasy planners ever had in their empty little heads, over a thousand U.S. soldiers will have died (using the current rate of attacks), and tens of thousands will have been seriously injured, our troops will be dashing from one "secure" outpost to the next while getting shot at, no oil will be produced because the facilities will be sabotaged as soon as they are fixed, the U.N. will continue to sit this one out, and everyone will know that this is another Vietnam.

The idea of conquering and occupying a muslim country to steal it's oil is delusional and doomed to failure whether it's proposed and carried out by a republican or a democrat.

Which candidate will have the "answer" to how to end the war? And, btw, no fair with the "getting the U.N. involved" because they are being attacked and blown up and are a targetjust as much as the U.S. forces.

Who will concede defeat by declaring "victory" and leaving? And, since the Dem candidates (except Kucinich and Sharpton) appear to be in favor of giving Bush* more occupation money and haven't advocated withdrawal, how many more presidents will it take until we get one who will fall on the sword as Gerald Ford did?