I read the posts. You crossed the line when you personally attacked, whereas all other posts seemed to be (while hostile in tone) in line with the conversation that was taking place. You apologized, and while it might not have been met with quite the reception you may have expected, it was done and should have been over with. Then Moonie pipes in with his opinion and you were off and running again. Let it go. (And iSm is right- this is a warning.) I shouldn't have to phrase it as such, seeing how we are all adults here, but I'm getting tired of the personal nature of some of the comments in this thread.

For the record, I am the most arrogant poster here. But that's only because I'm better than all of you.

Hey, me too.

She didn't try to actually get books removed. Instead, when the librarian said her collection development policy was based on professional criteria and that she would do all she could to fight any efforts to remove some books from the collection, Palin asked for her resignation (along with a bunch of other public employees whom she felt wasn't "on her side"). How conveeeenient. The librarian fought the request to resign, and the townspeople apparently made a fuss and didn't want her fired.

Are there more librarians or lawyers on LoT at the moment? The answer to that will dictate my position on these significant issues.

John McCain says "I want to win in Iraq".

So what is that, exactly? If it's regime change, we already did that.

Edited to add: Washington Post reports Palin claimed over $40,000 in per diems she was not entitled to. She's a crook.

No, no. She's a politician.

Here's my feelings on Iraq right now:

1) We went in under dubious circumstances at best. Congress may have been for it and may have been presented with an intelligence case that was at least partly convincing, but I personally was against it from beginning to end. The story was changing daily, the evidence the public was presented was never convincing and reeked of tailoring, and it was a major distraction from a far more important matter, dismantling Al Qaeda.

2) My suspicions were born out when, over the ensuing 5+ years, the administrations distortions, lies, willful blindness, and incompetence leading up to, and running, the war were revealed. In the best cases intelligence was wrong. In the worst cases, intelligences was falsified. In most cases, intelligence was filtered through a intense desire to find an excuse for war, cherry picking the scraps that supported the case and ignoring the counter points that tempered it. "We found some metal tubes. They're not really designed to be parts for weapons of mass destruction, but could in a pinch be used as such," became, "We've found parts for weapons of mass destruction!" Generals, on the ground in the theater, were routinely ignored, their assessments and requests pushed aside because they didn't paint the picture the administration wanted, and in some cases were fired for trying to disagree.

3) The result of all of the above, plus a distressing amount of ignorance regarding what we were going to face (who the hell goes into Iraq not expecting MASSIVE sectarian violence) was a war that could not be won outright, and a country in disarray and a huge step backwards in goal-du-jour of weakening terrorism.

4) I DO think we bare a responsibility of mending the mess we made. I have never been in favor of a summary pullout of troops and I do expect that we are going to have am effectively permanent military presence there for the foreseeable future.

5) That said, I can NOT take this administration's word, or the word anyone who is as in line with this administration as McCain is, at face value. I can NOT trust anyone who still cannot tell me the difference between Suni and Shia to know the right course. I can NOT put someone in charge who is okay with continuing the lie that fighting in Iraq=fighting Al Qaeda.

If Obama gets elected, looks at the situation in Iraq, looks a the data that intelligence and the military hands him, and decides, "Okay, we are making progress in cleaning up the disaster, and we need to see that through," people will be quick to brand him a hypocrite and to say that it vindicates what we've done over the last 5+ years. Bullsh*t. If he goes in there, and that's his analysis, fine. But just because they've by chance got it right now does not change the fact that Bush and company have been lying to us and screwing it up until now and does not change the fact that they have squandered ALL credibility in my eyes on matters foreign.

That is what I mean when I say I don't want a Hillary, who to me appeared likely to go in and blindly just start reversing everything she could just because it's the opposite of what Bush would have done. I do NOT want that. I want someone who is going to look at facts and make rational decisions, even if it happens to mean that some of those decisions would be the same.

Same thing.

:D

I've yet to hear a specific definition of winning from anyone who uses the term in regard to the Iraq War or the War on Terrorism.

Actually, Obama's already started revising his stance over the course of the past year (from "pull out now!" to "we would weigh it carefully and pull out slowly"), and the right has already called him on it. I think it shows that Obama is up on the situation and is able to be flexible and adjust based on moving targets.
This may sound stupid but that is the best question I've heard in a long time. If McCain is so desirous of "winning the war in Iraq," I would like him to define what that means.

Mostly, I am afraid that a McCain presidency will result in the U.S. fighting in FOUR wars by 2012 (Iran, Iraq, Russia, Afghanistan). And skirting around with China and Pakistan. And Palin would just say it's God's will. Oy vey.