<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>The Washington Independent - Latest Comments in On Iraq, Game Over For McCain?</title><link>http://washingtonindependent.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://washingtonindependent.disqus.com/on_iraq_game_over_for_mccain/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:06:21 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: On Iraq, Game Over For McCain?</title><link>http://washingtonindependent.com/522/on-iraq-game-over-for-mccain#comment-1790732</link><description>&lt;p&gt;@ufred, as long as there's the option of punting on Kirkuk, expect a three-and-out strategy. And the option appears, contrary to my expectations, not to be disappearing. The fact of the referendum will be what determines violence in the city, not a U.S. presence.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">spencer_ackerman</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:06:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: On Iraq, Game Over For McCain?</title><link>http://washingtonindependent.com/522/on-iraq-game-over-for-mccain#comment-1790733</link><description>&lt;p&gt;When do you think the issue over Kirkuk will be settled, or at least voted upon, and do you think having US troops visible will help contain violence in regard to Kirkuk?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">ufred</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:09:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: On Iraq, Game Over For McCain?</title><link>http://washingtonindependent.com/522/on-iraq-game-over-for-mccain#comment-1790734</link><description>&lt;p&gt;2010, sorry.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">ajm8127</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:53:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: On Iraq, Game Over For McCain?</title><link>http://washingtonindependent.com/522/on-iraq-game-over-for-mccain#comment-1790735</link><description>&lt;p&gt;That would be May of 2009, btw&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">ajm8127</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:52:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: On Iraq, Game Over For McCain?</title><link>http://washingtonindependent.com/522/on-iraq-game-over-for-mccain#comment-1790736</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think he means 16 months from when his is inaugurated since he really does not have the power to pull troops out of Iraq yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">ajm8127</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:52:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: On Iraq, Game Over For McCain?</title><link>http://washingtonindependent.com/522/on-iraq-game-over-for-mccain#comment-1790737</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If Obama continues to say '16 months' whenever he is asked, then someday he will get it right.  However, the first time he was asked, 16 months would be over in March.  Besides, with 300 foreign policy advisors, he is bound to get one or two answers right.  I just wish he had a little experience--in anything--to make me have more confidence in one of his proclamations.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">flalady</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:36:15 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>