Furthermore, the trip was scheduled months ago, before it even seemed possible that McCain would become the GOP nominee, AND Democrats on the Armed Services Committee completely okayed the trip. So you can take up your objections with folks like Carl Levin, Hillary Clinton, Jack Reed, and Jim Webb if you think they should've raised a fuss over this.

Excuse me if I'm not too sympathetic to your objections of decision-makers actually setting foot on the ground of Iraq, rather than sit in a comfortable chair stateside while calling for a surrender.

Nancy Pelosi's mis-guided trip to Syria ... sit in a comfortable chair stateside while calling for a surrender

What is "flat earth"?

... I don't understand ...

Also, I'm not sure that setting foot in Iraq suddenly grants you superior knowledge or perspective to decide the fate of the 27 million people who live in Iraq.  What we have done is we have won the war.  We have deposed Saddam.  We have freed the Iraqi people to make a choice for themselves that Saddam deprived them of.  They can make that choice for good or for ill.  But it is theirs to make and not ours to make for them.

We took the lid off this pressure cooker.  It was just like Tito's death in Yugoslavia.  Once the force that was providing cohesion is gone, the simmering ethnic and religious animosity boiling under the surface just overflows.  The difference is that Yugoslavia was split into its component parts.  We have no such plan to partition the country known as Iraq (well, Joe Biden does, but that's not going anywhere).  But that doesn't mean that Iraqis can't make that decision for themselves.  

And I never said that stepping foot in Iraq grants one a "superior knowledge"; however, it is very important for gaining perspective, because a lot gets lost in translation from media reports and an actual first-hand experience, talking with Iraqis, with soldiers, with generals. If you think visiting Iraq is a fruitless excerise for the people making decisions... I really don't know what to tell you.

How many times over there does it take to see what needs to be seen?  I would guess not more than once.  We've had 5 years of data to gather - and those leaders that deal in reality know exactly what we need to do to resolve this.  Not to mention the bi-partison Baker Hamilton Report that was summarily ignored by this administration.

Enough propaganda and photo ops -- it mocks the true sacrifice that so few are making on such a grand scale.

It's going to be a real bummer for you guys when you figure out you're not running against Bush, and all these references you have saved up over the last eight years no longer apply.

Anyways, the purpose of the trip is to talk with Iraqi leaders, with American generals, with American troops, and with other regional figures. If you're implying that a phone call would be sufficient, or that one report every two years adequately summarizes everything there is to know about our current situation... well, I suppose you could write to your Congressman and propose a moritorium on Congressional trips to foreign countries.

Excuse me if I'm not too sympathetic to your objections of decision-makers actually setting foot on the ground of Iraq, rather than sit in a comfortable chair stateside while calling for a surrender.

Does that not imply that setting foot in Iraq is superior to making informed decisions here without the benefit of going to Iraq?  

Also, I never said that visiting Iraq is fruitless.  You're usually quick to call a straw man argument when you see one, I'm surprised you don't recognize it when you make one.  My contention is simply that you need not step foot in Iraq to have an informed opinion on this subject or make an informed decision about what we should do.  And clearly you can talk to Iraqis without going to Iraq, Charlie Rose certainly does.

It is also not my contention that Iraqis don't want it (whatever it is) bad enough.  My contention is that the Iraqis are perfectly capable of deciding on what society, what government, and what country they want without us there.  I never said that they don't deserve security.  Because, of course, all people everywhere should have security, know freedom, live in peace, and not perish from starvation, dehydration or preventable diseases.  But because people should have security, does that mean the U.S. has to provide it to them?  Because clearly there are more places than just Iraq where people lack security.  If that is the justification for remaining there, then why don't we need to be providing security for people in other countries?  Are they less important?

What you didn't answer is who we would be surrendering to?  You also state there is a violent minority that threatens to dictate the future of Iraq presumably if we up and leave, who is this violent minority?  And they have the power to subjugate the Kurds in the North and the Shia in the South?  On top of these questions, why should we be so invested in holding together a country drawn up by French and English diplomats in 1920?