This is breaking news from Matt Drudge

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453402.0708333333.html

I was skeptical about how the U.S. would maintain the Iraqi's patience with a military presence after election day.

For those of you that remember, the United States gained spikes of interest among the Iraqi population. The most significant was April 9th, 2003 when the statue of Saddam fell which also symbolized the dictators fall. Then Saddam was captured on Dec 14th, 2003 and approval peaked once again.

2004 was a very stagnant year. It was obvious that the Iraqi people were growing frustrated with our presence. But they always maintained their bearing knowing that January 30th, 2005 would come.

Now it has come and gone... You may think they voted because they wanted freedom of democracy -or- because they wanted the U.S. out of Iraq. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what you think at this point (that was for you psoper). The truth is in the numbers, my friend...

I believe that if this exit strategy is initiated in late 2005 the U.S. should be able to maintain the interest in hope. It'll be like watching a clogged drain slowly spill into the pipes until 2007 rolls along.

As far as what I think not mattering you are certainly correct, but that goes just the same for you, my salty friend.

As for the drawdown starting this year and winding up inside of 2 years, I can only hope you're right.

I really think the sooner our visible presence on the ground there is reduced, the sooner they will have a serious chance at stability.

I really think the sooner our visible presence on the ground there is reduced, the sooner they will have a serious chance at stability.

Question: If the US presence is what is preventing a serious chance at stability, why did this vote go off so well? And, without the US, who will fight the terrorists?

Don't you think it's odd, if everyone hates the US in Iraq, that they had such and enormous turnout?

As far as what I think not mattering you are certainly correct, but that goes just the same for you, my salty friend.

The difference is that my opinion is supported if you turn on CNN this very second -or- search for recent Iraqi quotes regarding their praise for the election.

Your opinion is just hearsay in order to validate a bunk argument. I do like the fact you agree with everything else in my statement though...

Question: If the US presence is what is preventing a serious chance at stability, why did this vote go off so well? And, without the US, who will fight the terrorists?

Don't you think it's odd, if everyone hates the US in Iraq, that they had such and enormous turnout?

No kidding!

I think Gpat will agree with me 2005 is way to early to start pulling out. We will be there way longer than that. Why else would we be building bases? Also we need to be there for it to be stable for a while to come.

I think Gpat will agree with me 2005 is way to early to start pulling out. We will be there way longer than that. Why else would we be building bases? Also we need to be there for it to be stable for a while to come.

I do. However, I'm optimistic that we will endeavor to not get weighed down and distracted by the unimportant. At least not as much as we could.

I wouldn't base it off of the installations we have established over there. There are a lot of 'comfort' things we have available to us when we are on base, but all of it couldn't be classified as anything more than transient.

Having bases in the region is a bit different than our active presence there now. We have bases all over the world, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, to name a few.