Win what exactly?

It's obvious that the idgets have a new tack. Watching Mrs. Cheney on CNN and (gag!) O'Reilly on Letterman tonight, they are trying to nail interviewers with a false question. They are asking, "Do you want us to win in Iraq?" It is their way of nullifying valid arguments and penetrating questions by attempting to expose their questioner's supposed lack of patriotism. (See here for how the illiterate idgets are lapping up Lynn.)

I would answer the question with a question. "Win what?" What, exactly are we trying to win in Iraq?

Defeat the insurgents? Why? How will that benefit Americans? Is it not true that the insurgency exists because we are there? Wouldn't the way to eliminate the insurgency be to remove it's reason for existence? Yes. Then we should leave. That will eliminate the insurgency. We will win by leaving.

Keep Iran from attempting to invade Iraq? Iran has been invading Iraq since before there was either, approximately 5500 years. The only time that has not been happening is when Iraq has been invading Iran, approximately the same 5500 years.

Are we to remain there with our troops in between Shi'ite (Iran) and Sunni (Iraq and most of the other muslim states), shedding our blood and our treasure for, oh let's guessimate, 6000 years? Is that what the idgets think qualifies as a win?

Thanks, but no thanks. Just like Letterman got (gaggygaggag) O'Reilly to admit, this entire enterprise is about nothing but providing unfettered access to Iraq's oil. Our blood for oil for the mega-multinationals who will then sell this oil back to us at an outrageous cost and pocket profits so enormous as to be vomitous.

There are other sources of energy besides the lifeblood of our soldiers.

Letterman to (gaaaaaa...) O'Reilly: "You're putting words in my mouth, just like you put artificial facts in your head."