Are they playing Games on Iraq?

Some say that we should stay "until we meet all of our strategic responsibilities in the area", which could mean "until peace comes to the Middle East." This has not happen in the last 60 years, or far longer. So, what could they mean by that? Fight in Iraq for a Century?  Do they mean, for example, we will keep our soldiers in Iraq "until Victory" or until they win? Shouldn't they define what do they mean by "win" or "Victory"?

What if it is, like someone said, "until the last sectarian kills the last one of the other sect."  You do know they have been fighting each other for 13 Centuries, right? And, 2 Billion would have to die before this is true? That would put the U.S. in a category of its own.

So, what do the candidates mean and why must we try to get them to say what do they mean? Are they trying to fool us or are they playing Games on the Iraq War? Why? Are they afraid to tell us now they will be brave enough to send another 4,000 soldiers to die for a fight few understand and fewer could explain in a clear dispassionate manner?

Are they making a mokery of both our election and our  Democracy? Why are they afraid? Are they afraid of losing the election and, will they say whatever they need to say to win the election? What kind of people are these that send soldiers to die but will not say how many they will send, for what purpose or for how long?

I am talking about both Republicans and Democrats, except Denis Koncinich, Bill Richardson and Sen. Grovel of Alaska, we all know exactly what they would do and that is, exactly, why they do not have the slightest chance to win. They would have ALL the troops back in American soil within their Inauguration year -except for some residual forces, if local troops make a request and provide local security -obviously a minimal force of less than 10,000. You heard of the Military-Industrial Complex General Eisenhower warned us about, right? Listening to these three real outstanding citizens is the best celebration of our Democracy.