Reed and Hagel are both against the war in Iraq...

And they are both accompanying Obama on his trip to Iraq. If he were truly not intent on withdrawing our troops, would he have chosen two "anti-war" Senators to accompany him on the trip??

So, Obama and his two "anti-war" fellow travelers will receive the same information from the Generals on the ground. They will then decide how best to withdraw our troops. I cannot see either of the three changing their minds about Iraq?

We are going to get the troops out. Maybe even George W Bush is starting to realize this inevitability? As of today, the Administration began talking about "maybe" withdrawing troops at an accelerated pace. We can only take it at face value.

He turned on it a couple years ago, but he was very much in favor of the invasion.

Bringing Hagel along is a poke in the eye of this regime and especially of Gramps since Hagel and Gramps were very close friends prior to this invasion. Hagel's had buyers remorse...especially following the Walter Reed scandal.

Personally, I don't see any need for Obama to go to Iraq other than a photo-op.

I thought he was against the invasion from the beginning.

There's a Senator from Oregon who would love for people to think he didn't vote for the IWR. The only repugnican who voted against was Lincoln Chaffee.

Still...having Hagel along isn't such a bad thing. Better late to the party than never.

Cheers...

have a look at his speech before the vote, I think it is quite remarcable. He seems to go through argument after argument why it is a bad idea, but ends saying that he will vote for the resolution. The very last sentence is "We will be held accountable for our actions, as it must be" http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=7260776

East is waiting on this guy. Listen to what the Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis, Iranians, and Iraqis are all saying. They've been giving Bush the middle finger since January 2008. I believe that after this visit we will see stronger evidence of Obama's influence and welcome in the Middle East. After all when did Bushco begin talking about pulling some troops out of Iraq--within the last two weeks. Its all over but the shouting for McBush.

That's when the UN mandate on Iraq expires and his assholiness wants a new agreement in place that will handcuff any future president with permanent bases and, most importantly, assuring his contractor buddies also have long-term big money deals. The military's role will be to protect the contractors and oil companies who will be able to run amok...but al Malaki isn't buying it. Maybe the fact we've been too busying buying off and arming his enemies has something to do it with???

Not to go to war unless WMD/threat. We know the rest.

Someday we'll face the media's dishonesty about this, and allow us to blame less. No one forecasted the mistakes of how it was done, but many understood the area's cultural history and mistake of pre-emptive war without threat. Kerry, Obama both, and more.

And I agree, this sends the message: we are bringing our men and women home.