THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT

Does it strike any other remnants of the VietNam War era that there's an obvious parallel between the post-LBJ bipartisan presidential aspirants such as Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon and the current crop of John McCain, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton et al? Trying to outdo a failed "war president" by increasing troop numbers and death tolls did not elect HHH and won't McCain. And promising a "secret plan to end the war" but then matching his electoral opponent in actual war-making may have won it for Nixon but served him poorly in the end. Nonetheless, Nixon got the support of the youth and anti-war vote simply because he wasn't associated with the war policies of Johnson, as was Hubie baby.

Then again, though the "peace candidate" George McGovern won the Democratic nomination after RMN proved to be a lying jingoist who escalated the war despite his rhetoric in 1968, he lost the general election big-time. So what does history tell us? That an anti-war candidate can't win amidst an active war? That the only way to win the presidency is to lie to the American people and then reverse position? Even Howard Dean is saying now that we broke Iraq and now can't just leave.

Is there a single leading politician who will speak out and say, as the investment broker will, "run with your profits and cut your losses"? In other words, we're throwing "good money after bad" by continuing our involvement with the Iraq War. And, more importantly, we're jeopardizing more of our young people's lives by fighting a no-win scenario.