I have been on this 'bandwagon' since 67; what is wrong with it in your considered opinion? Since I ask this so darn late on this thread, I hope you see it. -- bucky1

And I've just returned from my morning round of golf. There isn't anything wrong with it at all. Quite frankly, I can't believe more liberals aren't supporting that idea which leads me to believe that most of the objections to Iraq are specious.

I for one, would love to see the rest of the world discover the free for all that would ensue if we withdrew our troops. Like the song says "you don't know what you've got 'till it's gone". Meanwhile getting the fiscal house in order would be a tremendous boon to the economy.

I am genuinely curious why the left doesn't address the idea. Between the left, libertarians, and the real conservatives, I should think it would be the proverbial "slam dunk" and the next great chapter of the American experience.

Svensker... why not bring back ALL the troops" thing that he trots out periodically, with a "yes, that's a great idea, I'm for it, too. Discuss." He has never responded.

You may be sure your approval of my idea was noted, but given the tone of most responses I receive, perhaps you'll understand my reticence in replying. Next time I shall.
Bucky has some additional thoughts in the last thread as well.

However, even if there is to be a terrible bloodbath, we must realize that it is not our country. We must leave them to take care of their own business.

I have the feeling that this will be the last expeditionary exercise for us for quite a while. I'm still of the opinion that this attempt to secure ourselves and someone else was necessary to get it out of the American system. Clinton sent the military on numerous police actions, and I hope that's a thing of the past as well.

I must admit I didn't consider the reaction of the military industrial complex. Things like this will take years to take root and hopefully they will get used to the idea of other people's money.

As for Kucinich (have you seen his wife?) he is way too much, all at once. Withdrawing from the world stage will have to be incremental. As is said, DC fears nothing more than an honest man. I think Kucinich is Rep. Moonbeam but he leavens the candidate mix nicely with uncomfortable attitudes.

I was going to let this Sanchez thing slide but the rank hypocrisy of the whole deal stinks. I don't know Sanchez, never read Sanchez, never saw his blog before... but the one thing I know for sure now, is that he like Guckert/Gannon is gay, and was a porn star. And a conserva/publican/non-approved minority. AND that DanJoaquinOz and Glenn don't approve of this person. Why is that?

Because he's gay? I wouldn't think so. Glenn's gay, and being gay is usually very PC.

Because he's a porn star? I wouldn't think so. Sex doesn't matter if one is a Democrat. So if one is a gay porn star that should be reason for a clap on the back and a round of drinks for the boys.

Because he's a conserva/publican/non-approved minority? But of course! Wait a minute though, conserva/publicans are a dime a dozen. What makes this one special? Ah yes, a non-approved minority. It is the greatest sin possible to the Glenn Greenwalds and DanJoaquinOzs of the liberal firmament. Good God, someone escaped form the liberal plantation!

Because he's actually over there? In the war zone? Well sure. If a righty supports the war with anything but his life, he's a "chickenhawk". But if a righty is disqualified from commenting on the war if not in danger, then I think the same standard should apply to lefties. Sanchez HAS to be more "serious" than Glenn or Oz. He's actually there.

Actually I haven't seen anything from the left about the Middle East other than "RUN AWAY."I haven't seen any feminists agitating for women's rights in the Middle East, I haven't seen any peace activists on the street as human shields. I haven't seen any gays agitating for gay rights in the Middle East. I wonder why? Oh yeah. HOMOSEXUALITY IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH in the Middle East. And the left just made a big public deal about Sanchez's homosexuality. That alone makes him a braver individual than you two twits put together. Not to mention more serious.

P.S. It's pretty twisted to laugh about someone's reputation being ruined and then insult the people who react in human fashion. How many people wanted to hang with a nice, white, rich guy, like Ken Lay after he was tarred and feathered? (Deservedly)

As Sanchez's for slogans and increasingly personal attacks, it sounds much like Glenn's writing style as well. Not that I'm cynical or anything, but until I see something concrete I'm going to reserve judgement.

Somewhere along the line, fundamental Enlightenment principles such as empiricism, humanitarianism, secularism and an axiomatic belief that all individuals share a universal human character and enjoy the same universal rights became indicative, not of the what was best in our society, but of what was most dangerous. -- Michael Harold

Maybe you should consider that in some parts of the world espousing those beliefs can get you sentenced to death. But not here. You may think those "truths are self-evident" but one has to fight for the right to practice those beliefs. Those rights are not given, they are won.

They know that Kim Il Jung and the rest are no Soviet Union, and it's just plain foolish to refuse to meet with them.-- Paul Rosenberg

If you had the opportunity to meet with Kim il Jung, what exactly would you say?