To: carranza2 who wrote (257251 ) 7/9/2008 5:06:45 AM From: Maurice Winn Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794909 C2, Helen Clark long ago accepted that there were two wars in Iraq [and a third in Afghanistan]. The war of conquest, which was won in 110 minutes as Iraqi soldiers surrendered as soon as they could, or ran for it in their undies. That was the "Mission Accomplished" war. The second war was the insurrection and political restructuring which is now proceeding reasonably to a muddled conclusion. Helen Clark refused to participate in the conquest of Iraq as she didn't think it a good idea. But years ago, NZ participated by joining the second war for stabilizing Iraq. Obama can quite reasonably take the two-war position too. He was against the invasion and nasty aftermath. He can quite reasonably be for the resolution which is now going on. Playing the "flip-flop" card was thought to be a political game winner, like calling somebody a "racist" is considered an argument winner. But in fact, those playing the flip-flop card and heavily over-using it, are starting to look silly. Shouting "flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop" isn't convincing. It's just mindless name calling. Flip-flop is past its use-by date. Obama is on a winner with his re-evaluation of the situation on the ground in Iraq. Demanding that he stick with a previous position is silly, and whining that he's changing his position to something better isn't going to cost Obama votes. It just makes him look more sensible than the opposition. He does seem to be on a role, garnering support from disaffected Republicans and all sorts. If he successfully invites Colin Powell to be Vice President, it's game over Rover, goodnight nurse. No way will he choose Hillary and Bill. There must be a lot of political pressure for him to choose Hillary though. Can he have TWO vice-presidents? Heck, throw in Bill and have three. Mqurice