I can't say whether we won in Afghanistan because I don't know what the goals were. If you don't define victory, how do you know when you achieved it? It's like being given a board game where you have all the rules, but no one tells you how you decide who wins.

Does victory mean we end state-sponsored terrorism? That the Taliban is no longer in control? That women can go to school, vote, and be viewed as valued members of society? Then I'd say we achieved those goals and we've won. Does it mean that we've captured Bin Laden, put a stop to the drug trade, or eliminated crime? Then we haven't won.

Most wars we've fought have had a clear definition of victory. The political leadership of the other side surrenders. Today we're fighting wars against stateless people organized into loose bands with no clear central political leadership. Who's going to surrender? And if the nominal head of a terrorist organization does surrender, will it mean anything? Will the rank and file accept that surrender or continue to fight.

We need goals to be set for war. For political purposes, the American people need to have a clear idea of not only why we're fighting, but when we'll be able to stop -- not a timetable, but a milestone. After watching Gen. Petraeus' testimony to Congress I'm certain that our government has a definition of victory, but it's not something that I can hope to ever understand. Our current definitions of victory (both in Iraq and Afghanistan) are too complicated -- xx% control over this province, xx% reduction in terrorist activity in this city.

You don't provide a source for your 2005 Federal spending graph, but according the Washington Post's Feb 6, 2007 edition, the proposed budget for FY2008 sets overall defense spending at 21%. (see http://urltea.com/2hde)

I'd caution against looking to approval numbers for sitting Presidents as a measure of their importance to their country and history. Bush might not be remembered by history as a great President, but then again, he might. History has a long memory and tends to look at results rather than actions. Lincoln wasn't terribly well regarded by his contempraries -- so much so that half the nation attempted to form their own country. Besides, when it comes to current approval numbers, the Democrat-led Congress is currently sitting a dozen points below Bush. The political climate is looking similar to 1992, when people voted (and polled) with a general attitude of "anyone but who's there now."

You're mis-quoting Romney a little. Current health insurance estimates say there's 47 million people without health coverage in the US. He suggests that a large part of that is because we don't have a free market for health care -- you get it whether you pay for health insurance or not. The quote, according the NY Times transcript is, "the reason health care isn't working like a market right now is you have 47 million people that are saying, 'I'm not going to play. I'm just going to get free care paid for by everybody else.' That doesn't work."

Adam: Thanks for your comments.
I think the most defining moment for me during this debate was Governor Romney's assertion that 47 million people could play and choose not to. Most of these people are barely able to feed and clothe their families let alone pay the outrageous premiums for heath insurance. I think Mike Huckabee might even agree with me on this.

I was disappointed to see John McCain snickering and wagging his head while Ron Paul was speaking-even to the extent that he distracted the audience. I saw a mean streak and arrogance that I had never noticed before. His approach to foreign leaders might be unproductive.