When will our troops come home?

Since President Bush brings our troops to Iraq, anything related to Iraq always become hot topics. One of the hot topics that I am sure everyone longs to hear the answer is when our troops will come home? Our troops have been in Iraq from March 2003 to now, 5 years already, but what have we got from there? Yes, we got something. For countable things, we have death toll is about 4000 but this number will not stop there. For uncountable things, we do not know exactly how many billions of dollars the government has poured into it so far. And there is more important thing that we cannot count is the grief of dead soldiers' family.
Let return to our history in the early days. In that days, Americans had to fight France, English, and Spain because of freedom; they had to learn to farm to survive; they had to do anything they couldd in order not to depend on supply of foreign countries; thus, America have become an independent and rich country. But now, we do inverse ways. We fight Iraq for unclear reasons. We waste billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers' lives there for nothing. If we assume that we got some benefit from Iraq, so what they are? We have not seen them yet. When will we really get them? However, everybody can see the consequence from the war. Mean time, there are many problems in our country that they have not been solved yet. The economics is sliding down. The value of US dollar is decreasing. People have lost their jobs because most of big companies have moved oversea. We depend on foreign countries for almost everything such as clothing, electronic products, and even some kinds of food. While the income is decreasing, the living cost is increasing. Food and gas price also go up day by day. Healthcare system is bad unless you got money. For all these reasons, for the benefit of the country and all the United States' citizens, I think President Bush should let our troops home.

Who will be the losers?

Hillary Clinton has two new advertisements named “True” and “Partner” that are started on Monday. In the first one, “True,” she criticizes Obama that he had oversights about information in Afghanistan after he became the chairman of a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee; He did not care anything else but running for president. And she praises herself that she is good at this field. She “will never be too busy to defend our national security”. In the second one, she emphasizes the state’s economic that is sliding down; and she will stand by middle class people. She is their “partner.”
If the President is an elected like-minded candidate, Clinton will lose because her image is not good. She chooses the way of criticizing her rival instead of shows up her talent. That affects her image to voters. Voters will assume that she just a woman who likes to find mistakes of others. And she’d better be critic than the president. In the fact, she is very talent. She proves voters that she is also a good candidate like others. She said, “It's time the middle class had a president who will stand up for you," and she will stand up by their side, not the rich. Clinton has weak sides; Obama does, too. After Clinton attacks him, he retorts that “he became chairman of that committee in January 2007, just as his presidential campaign was launching.”
Who will be the losers in this running? Obama or Clinton or McCain? No, those are voter, Americans. . Americans spend time listening presidential candidate’s speeches. Americans donate money and everything they can do to help these candidates. No one can guarantee who will be the good president but that what they do will help them to find the best one and they hope this will come true.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/03/clinton-goes-after-obamas-chairmanship-in-new-ad/