Tim Russert Gets DeWine to Reveal the Real Reason We're In Iraq!

One of the advantages of complete dependency on XM radio for news is the replay of all the Sunday news shows. I've listened carefully to each of Meet The Press' Senate Debate Series. Two weeks ago was the Ohio debate between DeWine (R) and Brown (D), and this week Russert had McCaskill (D) and Talent (R) from Missouri. I have a few observations:

• "we are not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis, we're there for us." -- Mike Dewine. Really? This seems to go against that whole liberation and freedom thing.
• Dewine ripped Brown for voting against the Patriot Act. In my mind: Point, Brown.
• Brown pointed out that Dewine sits on the intelligence committee. In my mind: Point, Brown.
• When challenged on his voting with the President 94% of the time, Talent challenged the logic by saying something like, "the President agreed with me, not the other way around." In my mind: Whatever, buddy.
• In clarifying the positive consequences of our Iraq policy, Talent pointed out that at least Iraq isn't competing with Iran to train and fund terrorists. In my mind: Doesn't that mean Iraq is cooperating with Iran? Or even if it doesn't, isn't that the reality? Yes, it is. So what's his point? I don't know.
• Dems from all around should look to McCaskill for how to answer questions about abortion, assuming of course that they agree with her position.
• Dems shouldn't refer to Iraq as "lost" as McCaskill did. I'm not saying we won, I'm not saying we're going to win. I'm just saying we should avoid saying we lost. Avoid the win-lose comparison and instead use right vs. wrong. Don't avoid reality, just choose a different word. --Jay B.