A few things comes to mind.
I think we agree on a conservative domestic energy policy.
Hmmmmmm, Guess I don't remember PW2's position. He usually favors bulking up the government to force the private sector to follow orders from central command.
I agree with PW that we should have stayed primarily in Afganistan, crushed all opposition there and likely have caught Bin Laudin in the process.
This goofy position does come from some in the hard Right camp as well as the Left. The domestic Democrats, MSM and most the World are hung up on this totally missinformed and irrational position. Usually people from the right are 'relatively' rational and think through their positions, (based on historical facts and practical cornsiderations). Please tell me what difference it would make if we elliminated every living thing in Afganistan on 9/12/2001? Do you really think in your wildest dreams that we would not still have Islamo Facists killing people all over the world to further their Islamic adgenda to dominate the world? Islam, (submission), has not changed since the seventh century. It has always been the most aggressive and militant major religion, with a clearly stated goal of world domination largly by military means. Afganistan is one of the most worthless places on earth. It has very little natural resources that the rest of the world wants: except opium. It is land locked and we need permission from other countries to make War there. The Soviets had a very imposing military in 1979 and they operated from their own territory and could not put Afganistan down. Why would you spend more of our precious resources on that place; other then to hurt us by draining our resources and tying us down in a God forsaken place far from anywhere of value, (which seems to be the reason the Left wants us to persue worthless and irrational goals with our military over the years)? If the bad guys can't regroup and train there, and project their power: outside that worthless country; AS IS THE CASE SINCE WE BROUGHT DOWN THE TALIBAN, why would you want to waste more US money and lives? 
Rather than effecting a civil war we can't contain in a country we had sufficiently contained before.
Valid difference of opinion here. Some: like you would apparently be totally comfortable with the UN criminal syndicate that enriched the Russians and the French with oil for food money. The largest financial scandle in the history of the world: no less. Sadam corntrolled the above mentioned syndicate, the Pakistanis were helping Libya as well as North Korea with their nuclear program. A nuclear Libya would be no corncern for you? You did not apparently mind the fact that Sadam openly and very notoriously supported terriorism, $25,000.00 payments to families of successfull bombers that killed children. Even though he was shooting at our planes nearly every day, (against the terms of his surrender in the 1991 War), he may not have been able to reconstitute his weapons programs. He also had not attacked a neighbor since 1990, so we can agree to dissagree here. I think the move into Iraq (supported by the oportunistic domestic Democrats) was and remains a valid move against radical Islam. That said: that is my opionion and some like you would have been quite satisfied with the status quo. We can agree to dissagree here.
We both agree that this administration is incompetent and we both abhor Neo-Cons.
Opinions are opinions, everyone has 'em.
We start to differ quickly from there though since he seems to support incompetent liberals and competent socialists.
