Thanks for information (about Iraqi civilians) and analysis Chris. ...and welcome to Glenn's 'Unclaimed Territory'. Where everyone gets a free mule and forty acres (motto.).

I like a person who can get to the point, Chris. (It's the main reason I read Glenn. This is no time to beat around the bushes...at this point, it's pointless.) You say this is the point:

>"Anyone who supports its continuation -- under any auspices, in any form, for any amount of time longer than it takes to remove all the troops quickly and safely -- is advocating the perpetuation of state terror in the name of the American people."

I would agree for the most part, and add these comments:

- 'under any auspices' associated with the Bush Adm. auspices. I think it's clear, No progress (Peace ful) is possible until the Bush Adm. is gone - they hold the reins of power. (*In fact, if ever justice demanded the impeachment of a U.S. president, this is it. If a president can be impeached over a stain on a red dress, how much more so over a reign of terror?! **I think Glenn is writing a book about this strange anomoly.)

- Admission (subsequent acknowledgement) of responsibility.

- Responsibility; We broke it, we own it. I would suggest; a) a declaration that we are leaving at x date, and b) we accept (and have the papers to prove it) the authority of the world community under the asupices of the United Nations. At this point, I think it's critical to acknowledge the authority of the United Nations in mediating international conflicts (per UN Charter, signatory).

Regards,

bah.

I think the body Politic may be compared to a family. The members of a family all have duties, obligations and responsiblities with each other as well as to the family as a whole, and these responsibilites vary from member to member because of their natural relationships.

In terms of the 'family as a whole', I doubt you will find a canidate more willing [or able] to extend the hand of friendship to all segments of society, who understands the importance and necessity of cultural diversity and who, from personal experience, would restore/enforce the equal rights and freedoms (such as religion; which congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment thereof) outlined in our Constitution... than Barrack Obama.

In short, to insinuate that Barrack is anti-GLBT or pandering to some specific religious authority is a mis-characterization of his position in my view. Moreover, to describe his position as anti-gay 'with extra Homo' does a dis-service to the GLBT community specifically, imho.

Unfortunately, to run a national presidential campaign the accepted standard is that one must needs the help of ...uh, professionals campaigners/strategery (is that the term?). I can certainly understand the need for help in organization, but I'm not sure if Obama 'needs' help with strategy or clarity of vision. In fact, there have been several ...'miscalculation' by Obama's professional campaigners over the past several years which Obama has had to (re)claify. I feel this may be the case here. (vetting can be so vexing when you're trying to bring people together.)

The way I see it, Barrack Obama is a good guy and his heart is in the right place, and 'we', as a whole, really, really need someone with a good heart...soon! Obama's whole thing is about bringing people together for a common good and, lord knows, we need someone to bring us together for a common good! If Obama is anything, it's his audacity for anti-hate. I hope he stays that way, come what may.

Sincerely,

bah.

(white, dirt-poor, rural vote.)

ps. on a lighter note, why are all you people in your underwear?