Here is a Great Exercise for the smirking chimp to think about.If justice be served in this cruel world, a mangy stray dog will visit his grave each day till the end of time, and pissing on his headstone, finally erode it into the likes of the same foul dust of the Arabian sands he so covets.

So you say 4,000 people died? What about all the folks that committed suicide? Is that in this fictitious figure? Is this a real number? After all, lots of people died that are not included in the “tally”.

So, you say that 4,000 people died. I think this is a gross understatement. Please send two dogs to visit that headstone.

Yes, this doesn't include the suicides. It also doesn't include the 10's of thousands more, permanently maimed physically and mentally. It doesn't include the 100k+ homeless Iraq vets. It doesn't include the best and brightest of Iraqis - the doctors, lawyers, scientists, educators, business owners who were forced to flee their country and who still live as refugees.

Whatever the true number, double it for the next 4 years should McCain get elected and continue the Bush years. And that's just Iraq. Triple it or quadruple it if you count what will happen when a President McCain invades Iran.

We have to stop the killing and the maiming. We have to send a clear message to Iraq that they have to take responsibility. We have to fix the military and deploy troops to where the real Al Queada is - Pakistan and Afghanistan.

We have to elect Barack Obama.

4000 is a bogus number...that is number represents ONLY those who died on Iraqi soil..this figure does not include those who were injured in Iraq and returned to USA then died as a result of their injuries nor does it include those who have committed suicide attributed to TBI (traumatic brain injuries)...the actual number of deaths incurred as a direct result of this war will never be known, but many estimates say there have at least 10,000 plus!

With all respect to folks supporting Clinton or Obama, the Democrats aren't going to ride over the hill and 'make everything OK'.

They proved their spinelessness to a fine degree when they won a majority in the House, and immediately engaged in their mock outrage about not being able to do anything because they didn't have a veto-proof majority, hanging the blame on Republicans for not being able to stop funding for the war when the Dems simply could have sent the same bill over and over until Bush turned blue or not sent a bill at all.

Veto proof majority is irrelevant. There is no law they had to send a spending bill to Smirk. I am also tired of the same excuse,"Oh! if the Democrats cut funds the troops would be put in harms way". My answer to that is, no, it would force the Pentagon to initiate withdrawl plans, it is as simple as that, no money, no occupation.

Of course, the Democrappers hide behind this lie just to get their pink keesters back into the their plush DC seats in the 'Dome'.

Every damn step of the way, Fancy Pants Pelosi and Hairy Reed have caved in on spending bills because they are composed of spineless protoplasam. What makes you think its going to be any different when already Obama and Pillary refuse to make a committment to exiting from Iraq.

Hairy Reed seeks retro-active immunity for the telecommunications industry spying on us. Fancy Pants Pelosi at first refused to give BushCo the right to persue military action against Iran when the Dems first gained a majority in the house only to buckle into the AIPAC lobby when they booed her for that when she was speaking to them on Capitol Hill.

The Democrats are just laughable

The Democrappers are their own worst enemies and by not stopping funding while shrub was still in office, the Democrappers have allowed bush to toss the albatross onto the Democrappers necks so Bush can waltz away and no matter what, it will be the Democrappers albatross and they'll take the blame for the rest of the outcome. Bush has successfully snookered the Democrat party into buying the Broken Pottery -and now the foolish Democrappers own a broken, utterly failed military adventure. BushCo played the Democrappers like an Ermine violin.

The Democrats have litteraly enabled BushCo to 'own' his broken pottery.

I just don't understand what folks see in the Democrats when they continue to plant the seeds of their own destruction.

I thought it was laughable when Fancy Pants Pelosi went to Tibet for her little Dog & Pony show with the Dhali-Llama to
cement this false image of a shining liberal standing up for human values. -What a Joke that was.

I won't vote for a party that has stupid pukes of the likes of Pelosi, Reid and Pillary. Although Obama may be less of a CorparateKrat, there are some signs about Obama that raise red flags:

His health care policy is market based regulation letting the foxes continue to guard the hen house the way its always been. Damn premiumums will keep going up the way they always have. Just when Social Security gave a cost of living increase giving a bit of relief to folks high health care premiums, the bleaking health care pimps raised their rates to another outrageous sum canceling out any relief.

Obama like Hillary has made no committment to get out of the occupation of Iraq. Obama will not be Sir Lancelot of the Knights of the Round table coming to our rescue.

The Democrappers spend a lot of money on blaming Nader for their troubles and that is one of the most laughable crutches of the Democrat party ever. So go ahead and vote for the neo-con enabling Democratic party if you so chose.

The Democrat party is an utter failure. I don't reward failure, so I may vote Green, Nader, Natural Law, but not Democrapper.

I have studied the basis for going to war with Iraq. I think both Congress and the President clearly violated the Constitution, specifically, Article. VI which essentially says that treaties that are made are the supreme law of the land.

In this connection, the U.N. Charter is such a treaty we made. And since it is our law of the land, we went to war without the approval of the Security Council (there are only two options open for going to war in the U.N. Charter and clearly Iraq did not attack the U.S.). Thus we violated the supreme law of the land--our law--insofar as all signed treaties are the supreme law of the land.

Right now, including our soldiers, everyone participating in that war is committing a war crime. Under the UCMJ our soldiers are expected not to obey unlawful orders. Right now they should refuse combat and then make as their defense that the president had no Constitutional authorization for invading Iraq having violated the U.N. Charter which is the supreme law of the land.

Kkaus - You and several others continue to state that Obama has not committed to ending the war in Iraq. Sir, that is not true. A long time ago he stated he would end it his first year in office by bringing two divisions of the troops home every other month. Since that time he has stated in several speaches wording that essentially says he will get together with our military commanders to devise a plan that will make sense, be safe, end our combat role and get our troops out of Iraq in the quickest way possible. The goal is to end our combat role in Iraq in one year. Just because he hasn't given a date for removing those troops or jumped up and down shouting I will bring the troops home the first day in office, does not mean he isn't going to "end the war."

He has no plan for ending the war, you say. Well, neither do you or I because we are not in commanmd, not there, don't have the necessary information, not in a position to confer with the military commanders or the Iraqi government, etc. etc. to be able to devise the plan. There is much to consider and Obama will not be able to devise the plan until he is elected. I hope he sends Bill Richardson to deal with the Iraqi government.

One thing I can tell you is not to expect wholesale troops coming home right away. He has said he will transfer troops from Iraq to Afghanistan where the enemy, the taliban and Osama bin Laden, are. He has said we are fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong place.

Obama's command of the language is too damn good and on very sensitve topics he is too politicly carefull how he says things. People miss what he is actually saying sometimes. But what he has actually stated is that he doesn't give a rat's ass what Pakistan likes or doesn't like, he is going to go get Osama and his [Bush portayed] little nest of cave dwelling vipers - borders or no damn borders.

Bush isn't the one who is strong on anti-terrorism. Neither are McClain or Clinton. All they do is make excuses to maintain the status quo. It's Barak Obama that scares the shit out of the taliban and Osama. He isn't going to allow them to sit in their comfy little border villages and come down to raid and forage for converts while Osama sends out a video tape once a year and plays the boogey man. Barak says he will do what should have been done long ago. Get the asshole who claims responsibility for 9/11.[If he is still alive?]

Of the three candidates, Barak Obama is the only one that hs given any indication of ending our combat role in Iraq and finishing the job in Afghanistan. Will he do what he says? Only one way to find out. But, at least he has committed to it. Please stop saying he hasn't.