The war is hugely expensive, agreed. In an ideal world, the money would be in the pockets of American's citizens. Remember that the war was authorized overwhelmingly by both political parties. Few people would argue that national security decisions are out of a government's jurisdiction! The decision to invade was made by weighing the costs and benefits of invading or not invading. It's clear that another 9/11 attack is a human, social, and economic cost that the US can afford to incur again. The question going forward is how the United States can make itself and the world best off given its current options. It's clear that leaving Iraq now would result in the ruination of that state. This outcome would be especially tragic given the progress of the surge. The failures of Bush/Rumsfeld are sunk costs and should not enter into the current analysis of what to do on the margin.
While it is true that at the time the war, well, if you can really call it a "war", was proposed, it was accepted by a fair number of people from both parties, but as you will later go on to say that "the failures of [senators] are sunk costs and should not enter into the current analysis," and I feel that is also true with continuing aggressive efforts in Iraq, beucase the primary reason for invasion in the first place was as a pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein and his purported WOMD's, which we *now* know did not exist. Obviously it's pointless to try to put blame on who gave that wrong information, because someone like you or I could never in a million years figure it out (and hopefully I don't sound too Oliver Stone-esque with this) through the beaurocracy, covertness and outright bullshittery of Cheney/Rumsfeld. The fact that we've verified there never were any should tell us that we need to get out, because despite what the Bush machine might want us to believe, the Americans being there isn't really doing much any more; one could possibly say we DID something good and have set the wheels in motion, but they're already going and we don't need to be there any more.
Not quite right, sir. As long as the fed continues to keep a tight watch on the money supply, the domestic price level should only rise at the acceptable rate (under 3%). Your purchasing power will be OK.
That's what they've been saying since 2002. I'm only 19 and even I remember when gas was $1.25. While *theoretically* my purchasing power should be OK, we both know that really isn't going to be the case if things keep going in the direction that they are. That 3% figure is just a pacifier, and anyone who has a receipt from 2001 ought to know better than to fall for that boilerplate nonsense.
The weak dollar is good for US exports. For instance, the low American dollar means that foreigners can afford more American goods (while the goods of foreigners become more expensive for Americans). This will be a boon to American industries and help the current account a bit.
While I respect you a lot more than most people on this forum for the way you've presented yourself in this thread, I have to say I am a little surprised someone with your seeming intelligence would say something like that. As I called the 3% figure a pacifier, this statement is beyond that; it's really, in lack of better terms, manipulation o.o That would be similar to saying "Well, the entire country of the United States has been nuked today, but on the bright side, their waste problem has been solved." Obviously that's a fairly dramatic analogy, but I'm sure you get my point. That statement is the definition of diminishing returns, and frankly I don't feel that we should have to be in a budget crisis to be able to have a lucrative export industry. There ARE ways of fixing our import/export deficit, and simply losing the value of our currency is not a viable or long-term way to do that!
An early February 2008 Gallup Poll found that 43% of Americans think the troop increase is "making the situation there better".[86] A CNN poll conducted during the same period found that 52% think that US forces are "making progress in improving conditions in Iraq and bringing an end to the violence in that country" while 45% disagree.[95]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007
Well 43% is certainly less than half of the people, and you should also look at what percentage of people who vote there are republican; that's a fairly biased view. CNN is also a less-overt Fox News, as we all know, so I would personally discount a margin of 2% on one of their polls, but then again, where exactly COULD someone find a completely non-biased answer to a question like that? I think it's probably pretty futile for us to trade links back and forth of polls supporting/admonishing the current state of Iraq, and I'm sure we both know there are a million of each
McCain thinks setting a timetable to withdraw from Iraq sends (Hillary/Obama) is a bad idea. I agree. 
I also don't think a time-table is the correct strategy, actually
I feel that, with the exception of General Patraeus himself, and a few experts and field reports, nobody is really capable of knowing FOR SURE what exactly is happening over there, but I do think that the little progress we're making at this very moment is a good indication that we've exhausted the effectiveness of us being there. But as I was saying about people like you and me not really being able to know, I think they need to pay for one of those Harvard Studies like they seem to like to do occasionally and get them to figure it out, or at least be able to present a clear, unbiased and accurate description of what exactly is happening so our government can get a better idea of how REALLY to solve the problem, because I would bet that 24/25 US senators couldn't name half the states/provinces in Iraq, and I feel they need to be more thoroughly educated on the subject, and then let them come up with a decision based on those facts instead of party alliances.
Topic: A Question to Obama Supporters