This whole dynamic of riding the anti-war vote to power, then voting to fund an ongoing war while claiming to be ending it, reflect the conflicting necessities the Democrats face. As representatives of U.S. imperialism, they are committed to maintaining U.S. global dominance. Yet they fear the U.S. is sliding toward a strategic debacle of epic proportions and may already have lost the war in Iraq.  So they're trying to find a way to extricate most U.S. forces and reposition and strengthen the U.S. in the region.

And they're trying to carry out this "redeployment" while making clear to the world and the powers-that-be in the U.S. that they can be just as tough and ruthless as Bush.  At the first Democratic Party candidates debate, both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards forcefully responded to a question about terrorist attacks with declarations that they'd act "swiftly" and "strongly."

Ask yourself, if there is a large-scale terrorist attack within US borders in the next 12 months that kills large numbers of Americans, who will the frightened American populace vote for in the 2008 presidential election.  You know the answer I don't have to say. I don't see any other way that a Republican can win the White House next year.

I'm not saying that this is a conspiracy or that Al Qaeda and conservative Republicans are complicit allies, I'm saying that Al Qaeda and the Bush Republicans are dependent upon one another for their mutual survival and continued expansion.  Removed one, and you crippled the other.

Barack Obama is just stating the tactical realities involved in fighting a terrorist organization that recognizes no borders, if you can remove enough of the leadership that does the planning and organizing, you greatly reduce the possibility that a major terrorist attack will succeed.  General Musharraf, (the man is a dictator and referring to him as a president is something that only ABC and the other enemies of democracy would dare do) is backhandedly protecting Al Qaeda because that organizations continued existence helps consolidate his hold on power.  Musharraf's motivations are very similar to those of the Bush administration and the Republican agenda.  They need a resurgent Al Qaeda, otherwise their political foundation begins to erode like sand in the surf.  Musharraf and the Bush administration are playing games with the American people and the people of Pakistan, they must drag on this conflict indefinitely because it is to their continuing political advantage.  Obama's suggested course would help put an end to this game, he at least has the guts to propose doing what is tactically necessary, something the other Democrats don't have the balls for.

It's unfortunate that so few people, on this site and on the left, are unable to recognize true leadership when it's right before your eyes, leadership that is at least less tainted by partisan politics than all the other genuine contenders for the presidency of this country.

 Grow up and open your eyes or you're going to find yourself living under Republican rule once again, or you'll end up settling for a Democrat that does nothing but placate voters in order to get elected, and will then get you to drink the same anti-democracy Kool-Aid the Republicans have been feeding you, and you'll swallow it and ask for seconds simply because it has a Democratic label.

Bush hasn't done that. He got us into the wrong war. Obama is the first candidate to present a comprehensive view of how we address this problem. It's a gold standard, not a departure. I think all of the other dem candidates will be measured by this.

Now, last time I looked, Pakistan has nukes.  Oh boy, do I love the idea of a nuclear armed radical state that has a history of terror in Kashmir (and India in general).

by spring of 2008, when the real primaries occur, most of the wannabe's will be gone. what'll be left are those who have a legitimate shot at the oval office. sen. obama, guliani and thompson will not be among them, having imploded long before that.

i submit the democratic candidates left standing, by primary season, will be clinton & edwards. for the republicans, i've not a clue, none so far have exhibited any substance.

Shows what Hillary's investment in ally-making with Murdoch can do, if nothing else.

First, kdog, you note that you think it is possible to scale back our (military?) power to the point where it would not be possible to "occupy other countries, stage coups, ally with oppressors," but still maintain national defense.

I understand you haven't done more than sketch this out as a possibility, but could you describe how such a scaled back system would have responded to the September 11th attacks, specifically regarding the Taliban. Presumably, we wouldn't have been able to invade Afghanistan and oust the Taliban had we been in the situation you envision. What would or should we have done?

And SUO, along those same lines, obviously we possessed relatively greater military power than the Taliban and indisputably we used that power to "F* with them." Are there circumstances where it is justified to F* with other countries? Is that what you meant when you said "That is not to say, of course, that our use of our power should not be questioned by us..."?

Second, setting aside the question of military might, what about economic supremacy? Certainly, the exercise of military might overseas has made enemies. But so, too, has the daily exercise of U.S. economic activity. That activity was cited as a reason for opposing the U.S. in OBLs 1996 Fatwa. kdog, do you think it possible that even if we were to scale back our military power our economic power would continue to inspire people to violence against the United States? If so, what do we do about it? If not, why not? SUO, what do you think?