And that statement is just plain offensive. What you’re saying is you’ll choose to be offended until everyone agrees with your approach. We don’t need you telling us how you’re offended, we need people with bright, selfless ideas.

We don’t need to compromise to continue providing service to those in the Middle East just like the many years we did for Germany and Japan. If you want “more effective foreign policy, suggest that Dems (and Ron Paul) stop bellyaching and tell their constiuents to produce more for others and expect less from others. Starting with not expecting instant results from people who have had a different culture all of their lives.

The suggestion of a ” more effectiive bipartisan foreign policy” is complete nonsense until Clinton/Obama decide we’re staying in there to clean up our mess (yes, I said OUR mess, not Bush’s mess), or leaders on the other side of the aisle decide to give up trying. Until you have leaders from both sides of the aisles solidly behind doing the same (and hopefuly right) thing, you won’t have bipartiship.

While I understand your post and intention behind it, you have to ask yourself why at this point Hillary and Obama do want to withdraw from Iraq. With regards to the individuals fighting there, they are by a majority foreign born. If we leave Iraq, the majority of these foreign born “freedom” fighters/terrorists will not simply retreat to their homeland to participate in civilized society. Mitt Romney hit the nail on the head regardless of your agreement or disagreement, and I fear that Democrat’s belief that we can live in a utopian society is simply an irrational by product of American prosperity.