Points well taken re: the surge.

But, Obama/Biden supporters must be honest. If, back in January 2007, we had embarked upon withdrawal of all forces within 16 months, this would have been the end of our new Iraqi government. Decent interval. Saigon redux. Harry Reid said himself the war was over and lost. Joe Biden said doing anything more would be not just a mistake, but a tragedy. Yet, Obama is now saying: hey, the surge looks pretty good, but with my withdrawal plan the parties might have gotten their stuff together even sooner, reduced violence on their own and passed some legislation. That's just not believable.

Faulknerjr:

Your man Obama had a very good night tonight, even if you didn't see it. Contra some posters above, McCain was very good too. It was Ali-Frazier, 15 rounds of very good debating. I have watched a lot of these, and I think this one might have the best.

The VP deal will be one heckuva contrast. Blabbermouth Joe vs. Sarah -- I Love Her and Hope She Can Pull it Off -- Palin.

Also, I'll give a cheer here for Jim Lehrer. That was the best moderating I have seen.

Hey, don't count me a supporter of this crazy war policy. I'm just trying to follow the logic of each candidate's position.

I thought when we invaded Iraq we were going to swoop in, grab the WMD (in my mind, I pictured some elaborate labs being burrowed in the hillsides like you see in science fiction), turn the keys over to the least bad SOB we could find, and be done, with a warning against future mischief. I don't know which is worse -- the fact that we embarked upon democratization or the fact that Bush/Bremmer/Whomever cannot even agree on whose idea it was to do so.

I also thought the surge plan was absolute madness, but as an American, and an unwavering supporter of the troops (if not always the war planners), I have been very gratified to see it succeed, to the extent it has. Now, is it worth more sacrifice, and cost? Gee, I'm still not sure. I'm not even sure if Petreus is sure -- he tends to duck those big picture questions at Congressional hearings.

As far as the debate tonight, I thought the entire middle East discussion was a mixed up hash. The only thing that stood out in my mind was McCain's mock imagery of Obama and the Iranian loon debating whether or not Iran gets to destroy Israel. That was not a good moment for Obama.

Some posters above make two points in Obama's defense. First, the Iranians are not really threatening to destroy Israel. Second, Obama wishes to meet Iran's president, not its supreme leader (or is it the other way around?), and only the latter has control over foreign policy.

First, I am sure lots of things get lost in translation when Iranian rulers disparage Israel and talk about its demise. The bottom line, however, is that the Arab world (minus Persian Iran) has wanted to push the Jews out of Palestine since 1948, and engaged in three big wars to do it. Iran is now in the mix with its nuclear capability. The international "seminar" Iran hosted for Holocaust deniers was certainly ... um, strange.

The scary thing for Israel, as experts have mentioned, is that Iran could build the bomb, smuggle it into Lebanon, and then lob it into Tel Aviv and kill more than a million people. Worse, the thing might not even be traceable to Iran. Could be of North Korean origin, they will say. Who knows. The Iranians, as Shiites, are also of a sect which is known for its Gotterdamerung type views -- often losing in the short term, but waiting for redemption when it all goes down, over time.

McCain and Palin have been all over this, with their insistence not only that we snub these people, but that we tacitly green light Israel to take out the Iranian facilities themselves. I was surprised, frankly, that Obama did not get in at least a word somewhere supportive of Israel. I bet he will do so in a subsequent debate.

As for the second point, above, I have no idea how the Iranians claim to be governed, much less how they are actually governed, and therefore do not know whether Obama was being sensible in drawing distinctions between their various rulers.

You make some good points about proliferation.

My thoughts here are largely political. First, if our country believes the Iranians are run by Holocaust-denying lunatics, the prudent move -- to seek the pro-Israeli vote (both Jew and Gentile) -- is to at least vocally condemn them. McCain and Palin are doing that. Obama (and last night was not the first time) sometimes is not.

Second, I don't think the country wants to start another war based on dubious intel. That's why it is shrewd, in my view, for Palin to be talking up the Israeli go it alone option (get the job done, but without our blood). It was also shrewd for McCain last night to discuss a "league of democracies" to put sanctions on Iran (recognizing Russia would veto any UN based sanctions). The whole discussion last night, from McCain's perspective, showed proactive thinking as to how he might deal with Iran as president. Obama's comments did not.