And that’s the problem: Although you’re quickest to point out the willingness of folks to succumb to “received wisdom”, it’s increasingly clear to everyone but yourself that you’re no more immune to it than those you’ve lectured.

In truth, any one of the democratic candidates will get us out us Iraq, and each at roughly the same rate, because it is actually circumstances that will determine that withdrawal rate– not the lollipops being handed out on the campaign trail. Edwards can’t promise specifics. Neither can Obama. Hillary, who has been pressed far harder than any other candidate on this for no other reason than the fact that she is Hillary, is well aware of this, and she is simply being honest with herself and us–

Even if you aren’t.

What a pity that a man like him stands no chance of taking the White House.

Those aren’t MY comments. However, I do agree that Hillary is as hawkish as the rest.

The above comments are just one example of the thinking of voters that will not vote for Hillary.

You know, Chris, your rantings are oddly reminiscent of the way the Bush cheerleaders used to rave and wave their arms about whenever I pointed out the facts about Iraq. They came off terribly defensive - almost as if they knew I had reality on my side.

Yes, so did all of the write-in candidates. [laughing]

I’m not trying to shut you up, I’m actually trying to get you to talk– to back up your argument. Trying to characterize it as an attempt to stifle expression is simply–

And then, Shirin writes: ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hmm. Oh dear. Well, let me put it this way:

Oh, somewhere in a fascist land,
The mouths are all clamped tight;
The citizens are full of fear
That speaking won’t be right;
Each citizen denied the chance
To speak or scream or shout;
That ain’t what happened here, my dear;
You talked shit and struck out.

With apologies to Ernest Thayer.

-fyt

But it’s kind of funny that she has rebuked him both for saying he would talk to “adversaries” undconditionally, AND that he would move some troops to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Always wanted to say that. >;)

And Shirin further substantiates her claim: Hillary’s (and Obama’s) plan, on the other hand, would, according to people who know about these things, require and estimated 40,000-75,00 troops…

Apparently unnamed “people who know about these things” are your sole authorities for the data you cite. Oh well, they’re shy.

Gee whiz, can’t argue with people who know about these things, and I think like most I envy you your acquaintance with them. Introduce us to them sometime, won’t you?

Thanks!

1. That would be an estimated 40,000-75,000 troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely with no end in sight.

2. I am not a supporter of Edwards, but of the top three democratic candidates he is the only one who has stated his intention to withdraw down to a minimal number of troops for a specific purpose that does not involve dominating the people of Iraq.

3. You can insult me all you want, and you can engage in your ludicrous armchair characterizations of my mental condition, but you will never - NEVER - shut me up.

Hillary’s (and Obama’s) plan, on the other hand, would, according to people who know about these things, require and estimated 40,000-75,00 troops, and based on what she said the troops would be doing there, some of them would have to be combat troops. This is not what I call a withdrawal, it is a scaled-down occupation, and one way or the other it completely violates the clear will of the vast majority of Iraqis, including, by the way, most Kurds, who are by now royally sick and tired of the Americans.