Life's A Beach

So who or what are we protecting in this 'long war'? Now, the discussion may center around the differences between Iraq and Korea and there are many, but, my feeling is, this is exactly where this administration wants to lead the debate. Get us all involved with debating hypotheticals and hot under the collar about cognative dissonance etc. When the real questions fall to the floor like a sucked candy wrapper.

Who on the republican side would get behind this kind of commitment? A substantial number of congressional republicans will be in a fight for their political lives in '08 thanks in large part to Bush's war, would they be willing to sell this idea to an already wavering constituent base?

The republican presidential candidates have shown themselves quite capable of trying to sell any extreme position to the base but eventually they have to go up to the electorate in general where the positions stated within the primary debates are proving to be increasingly unpopular. Will they add the 50 year occupation of Iraq to their box of tricks?

Does this statement imply that Al Qaida, Salafi Sunni's, Nationalist Sunni's, Secular Sunni's and Shiites will be in a perpetual civil war? And, should we have our brave men and women stuck in the middle of it?

Does this statement imply that the other regional governments are incapable of protecting the production and supply of oil without a large US presence in the region? Because, if the US is incapable of pacifying and protecting the Iraqi people, as now seems apparent, and the insurgency has yet to affect the supply of oil regionally, as is also apparent, that would appear counter intuitive.

If our strategic mission all along was to protect the production and supply of oil and project US power in the region as a stabilizing force, then what was all that crap about WMD, Iraq-Al Qaida links, Mushroom Clouds and Freedom?

Will a democrat please stand up and effing respond to this!