Reply #25: I can understand his point

[jobycom]

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. It seems sick to me that one half of our country can push for an invasion which destroys the country, and the other half can then pull us completely out, leaving the mess we created. I'm sure no one in Iraq gives a damn about the soul-searching of our partisan politics, they just want the people who broke their country to fix it. And he's right: the fact that the invasion was wrong doesn't make our abandonment of the nation we broke right.

So I get what Warner and Clinton and Kerry are saying, and can empathize strongly with it. I wonder what decision I'd make in their position. I'd have trouble just pulling out and leaving Iraq in the shape the Republicans put them in.

But I'm not in their position, and I don't agree with their decision. I don't see how we are going to fix anything we broke. I don't see how our presence there makes anything more hopeful. The fighting is happening because we are there. The possible Civil War will happen whether we pull out tonight or ten years from now.

If Warner or Kerry or Clinton or anyone else wants to set a legitimate, concrete condition that will allow us to leave, I'll listen. It needs to be more defined than "When things are stable enough for us to withdraw." But if they can define it as, say, when Iraq achieves a certain election goal, or consitutional goal, or troop training goal, and the goal itself is something quickly achievable, I can accept that. It's not as good as pulling out by morning, but it's better than hanging out for the next ten years.

Anyway, my thoughts. One more thing--Kerry or Clinton or Warner would all make better decisions than BushCo or McCainCo or any other RepubCo that could win in 2008. Even if they say the same words, they would all do a better job than Bush.