$3T divided by 300 Million Americans = $10,000 for every man, woman and child – every social class, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

For what Noble Cause was such a price payed?

What is the nature of this ‘Victory’?

There has been much debate about whether Sen. John McCain is a candidate of change. But in one area, McCain is unquestionably a reformer. He would almost certainly make fundamental changes in the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court.

McCain has said that, should he be president, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito “would serve as the model for my own nominees.”

How can anyone in their right mind call using Bush’s appointees as prototypes for future appointments a “change in direction”? IMHO, it is exactly what Obama has been claiming it would be, four more years of Bushism.

Each of us has areas we care about, and areas we don’t. If we are interested in a topic, we follow its development over the years. And because we have followed its development, we’re able to talk and think about it in a “rounded” way. We can say: Most people think X, but I really think Y. Or: most people used to think P, but now they think Q. Or: the point most people miss is Z. Or: the question I’d really like to hear answered is A. . . . Here’s the most obvious example in daily life: Sports Talk radio. . . . Mention a name or theme — Brett Favre, the Patriots under Belichick, Lance Armstrong’s comeback, Venus and Serena — and anyone who cares about sports can have a very sophisticated discussion about the ins and outs and myth and realities and arguments and rebuttals.

What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the “Bush Doctrine” exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.

Sarah Palin did not know this issue, or any part of it. The view she actually expressed — an endorsement of “preemptive” action — was fine on its own merits. But it is not the stated doctrine of the Bush Administration, it is not the policy her running mate has endorsed, and it is not the concept under which her own son is going off to Iraq. . . How could she not know this? For the same reason I don’t know anything about European football/soccer standings, player trades, or intrigue. I am not interested enough. And she evidently has not been interested enough even to follow the news of foreign affairs during the Bush era.

Shhhh….

(whispers – he doesn’t know about audio or video tapes).

Petraeus will never declare victory in Iraq The general in charge of American soldiers in Iraq has given a mixed assessment of progress in Iraq. General David Petraeus says that, while the country is in better shape than it was at the start of last year it still faces serious problems. General Petraeus has overseen the so called “surge” of American combat troops into Iraq and he is about to leave to take on a more senior role. He says the fabric of Iraqi society was being torn apart by “horrific” violence. The outgoing commander says he will never declare victory there.

Does McCain agree with Petraeus that there will never be “victory” in Iraq? Does McCain still insist that U.S. troops must remain in Iraq until “victory” is achieved?