Nice attempt at a back-handed compliment, especially since you would think that I would feel working for the USPS would be somehow beneath me, which I don’t. Those guys have some of the best benefits of all the employees of the federal government. But atleast I know how YOU feel ’bout them. As far as my actual job, when I was in the USAF, I sure as hell didn’t give out my Squadron, Base and Commander’s phone # for some random nutjob to try and harass me at work, why in the hell would I do it now. You made a list of the jobs… figgur it out yourself…

Duncan, my question is why you think: 1) socialism, or more appropriately in this case, a more cooperative social system since the left in the U.S. is not near socialism, leads to mediocrity and 2) why you think a cooperative social system is bad in the first place?

I live in Sweden, where there is a very cooperative social system. I pay nothing for education, ever and a maximum of about $120 a year for health care. I can live here for one quarter of my take home pay in the U.S. and have the same standard of living. And, trust me, there is no more mediocrity around me than anywhere else in the world, in fact, I find Sweden to be about the same as the U.S. except that is it much safer and cleaner in the big cities here.

So again, my question to you: Why do you feel this way?

Regarding Iraq, I think all of us will welcome the opportunity to draw down our troop committment in Iraq as the situation on the ground presents itself. Premature withdrawal would be an error in Iraq (as it also is in lovemaking). I feel confident in letting our commanders on the ground determine out need for trooops.

As far as my comments about committment and “giving our word”, I’m not talking about a political “deal”. What I’m referring to is that a lot of ordinary Iraqi citizens in the tens of thousands at least, have put their very lives on the line by supporting the actions of our troops in Iraqi, along with various tribal leaders and other political leaders. These people have stood up against the threats of terrorists and other forces wishing to tear the society apart by their taking actions such as denying aid and refuge to terrorists, taking leadership positions in the emerging central government and its tribal allies, joining the military and police forces, or just going about their daily lives and building an economy through business activities in defiance of terrorist threats or extortion attempts.

The whole fabric of the emerging post-Saddam Iraq society rests upon our promise to stand with them as they create a society and government that will work to enable a functioning society, protecting them from harm as they create their own structures of self-defense.

This is what I mean by giving our word.

It’s really late to start to start a thorough discussion about global climate change. Let me just say that, laying aside the issue of the how much impact human actions are having on global temperature compared with natural variations, my concern is that the actions we take should have measurable impacts so that we know what if any difference out actions are taking, and we also need to assess the costs versus the benefits of such actions, taking into account the opportunity costs of not devoting resources to other more pressing issues (such as hunger, sanitation, water supplies, air pollution, to name just a few). Not to mention that shrinking out economic activity further may forestall our ability to conduct research in or take advantage of future technological advances in the area of climate change because we less money to allocate. The proposed “solutions” to date do not meet these criteria.

Again, read the Disclaimer Etc. link, which defines the ground rules here. I try to be fair in my mind, but I don’t have to defend to you the boundaries that I or the other adminstrators here choose to set.

That said, your last comment indicates to me that you appear capable of behaving yourself here.

“Having done so, we have the obligation to keep our word, especially given the clear progress that is being manifested.”

I wasn’t aware we had given our word. What did we agree to do, and to who?

Seriously, did Bush cut some deal with someone in Iraq?

The merits of our going into have long been debated, and certainly for a season, Afghanistan was the central training ground for Al Qaeda. We certainly missed an excellent opportunity to catch Osama at Tora Bora.

However, it is also clear that the Islamic terror networks was then and is now much more extensive than just Al Qaeda. 9/11 was a wake-up call.

Iraq was a logical target for us to attack the larger network of Islamic terror groups. The invasion was a military success, though Turkey’s refusal at the last minute to let us send force to N. Iraq helped enable much of the Saddam’s people to escape into what was then friendly territory.

We also made serious mistakes in the early occupation and did not change course quickly enough to forestall what almost all observers now recognize had almost became a full-blown civil war.

However, with Rumsfeld’s departure and the ascension of Gen Petraeus and the initiation of the Surge strategy (coupled with overreaching by Al Qaeda and other terrorist elements), we have achieved an unprecedented reversal in Iraq in a remarkably short period of time, especially when you look at the history of counterinsurgency campaigns and the duration that they take. And while 4,000 soldiers plus the thousands of injured troops are a great cost, compared to Vietnam casualites and other major wars, these numbers are relatively modest.

Though that comparison is not much comfort to one who believes the war was a mistake to have commenced – and I respect that conviction.

And I do feel that the Bush Administration was inexcusably derelict when, having obtained Congressional authrorization to go to war, they decided that they did not need to continue justify the war to the American people.

This all said, we have not only put out military credibility on the line in Iraq, rightly or wrongly – we have also put the lives of many Iraqis on the line who have put their trust in our promises to remain in Iraq until we have established a stable governing structure that can defend itself and keep peace among its peoples.

Having done so, we have the obligation to keep our word, especially given the clear progress that is being manifested. The point at this point is not to focus on who was right or wrong at various junctures in the past, which controversies will not be resolvable for years if ever – rather, my desire is that we endeavor in so far as it is in our power to yield an honorable conclusion.

And we have the obligation to act in accord with present facts, rather than holding on to outdated positions. Bush did change course with the Surge when he saw that the prior direction was heading to defeat; are today’s critics willing to entertain the possibility of a successful outcome (as I outlined in two paragraphs above)?