Obama is claiming to be against the Iraq war to get votes. 

And, for the record, he's wrong.  Now, I'm not on board with the McCain 100 years thing, but the U.S. needed to attack over there and it needed to be indirectly aimed at Iran.  That's what we did.  For the most part Iraq is going exactly to plan.  Our kill ratio is over 100:1, that's the greatest success rate ever.  Think about it.  Here's a summary ala Swordfish:

Stanley: War? Who are we at war with?
Gabriel: Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.

There's some sense behind Iraq, and it begins with scaring the hell out of those who would attack us.  And, in this particular case, depleting Iranian assets and putting pressure on them.  Dude, read Foreign Affairs.

The Beav

www.RealWisconsinNews.com

why you're for Hillary.

...will be to hammer Barack on the war. And, it'll be a winning issue for him as we are beginning to see success in Iraq (in a messy unpalatable sort of way). To get a Dem in the Whitehouse, the right strategy is to run Hillary in a close race v McCain, with Barack as VP, then Barack in 8 years. But, as a note, I've been around a lot longer than quite a few here and know some things about some things. If you or any reader believes that Iraq was about WMDs, they are not looking deeply enough. It was exactly for three reasons: 1. Scare enemies. 2. Put pressure on Iran. 3. Oil. Two out of three were right.

The Beav

www.RealWisconsinNews.com