The head is incorrect: the correct head would be "End the Occupation in 2009." The war was won long ago. The occupation has been a disaster, as was forewarned by an overwhelming number of sources.

Unfortunately the media continue to talk about a "war" in Iraq. This is not the case. The United States is occupying Iraq and from most accounts, not having a great deal of success. I believe the citizens of the United States would be even more against the current situation, were the term "occupation" to be used, rather than the stirring term "war."

Don Williams

Oamaru, New Zealand

Speaking as one who, heretofore, has seen little of substantive difference between the Clinton & Obama campaigns (and in many respects, between them and McCain) it's pleasing to hear Obama moving his rhetoric away from the so-called "middle of the road" position of a "measured" withdrawal of "combat" troops from Iraq.

I am, however, not convinced. The immoral, illegal, unconscionable Iraq War is for me, and for many progressives with whom I correspond, the defining issue of this election--having been either robbed, deceived or both in the '06 Democratic "landslide." As you report it, there still seems to be too much wiggle room in Obama's statement for anyone to hold his feet to the fire over it.

To be credible, and to gain the endorsement and support of the antiwar, out of Iraq now! crowd, Obama needs to put forth a definitive statement of what exactly he intends to do and over what period of time. Does "withdrawal" mean all US troops, or only combat troops? Does "combat troops" include SpecOps forces for so-called "anti-terrorism" actions against Al Qaeda (where do they all keep coming from after each announcement that they've been destroyed?)? Does that include dismantling and withdrawing from our bases that are "enduring" but not "permanent"? Does that mean withdrawing "support troops," including those in the never-ending (it seems) job of training the Iraqi Army to "stand-up"? Does that mean abandoning the US oil corporation-written Hydrocarbons Act and allowing the Iraqi government to function as a true representative body? Does it mean reframing the issue to stop accusing the Iraqis of failing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (on which we stand) despite "all our efforts" (in the form of F-15s dropping LGBs on their villages) and acknowledging that it is us, not they, who are the problem?

Further, Obama's position on Afghanistan and intervention in Pakistan must also be spelled out clearly in terms that one can hold him to in the future.

Until he does so, he is only one of two Democlone candidates who differ from McCain only in degree and not in substance.

Rael Nidess
Impeach for Peace - Marshall

Marshall, TX