Here. Found this on a blog, but it describes how I feel rather eloquently:

He accepts the Republican definition of a “democratic Iraq”: Democracy in Iraq is not necessarily equated – as Donnie argues – with the flawed electoral process we’ve set in motion. Rather than support that cumbersome process, Dems can show they support the will of the Iraqi people by recognizing their nearly unanimous desire to end the occupation. His use of a phrase like “the new Iraq democracy” shows a limited understanding of the situation on the ground, and a continued eagerness to accept Republican talking points and spin-based language. Use their language and they’ve already won.

He posits a false choice: The entire “should we stay or should we go?” argument is a phony one that serves the interests of the pro-occupation, pro-war forces. Rather than pose this argument as a straw man – should we just pull out tomorrow and leave chaos? – let’s try this one instead: Let’s notify the United Nations that we wish to withdraw from Iraq at the earliest possible date, and begin trilateral negotiations with the UN and the Iraqi government to make that happen in the safest way possible.

His position requires entrusting the continued occupation to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld for the next three years: Do I really need to elaborate?

He calls withdrawal “irresponsible,” but doesn’t explain that there is more than one way to withdraw: As described above, there are ways to negotiate a relatively short-term withdrawal with the UN – one that would involve the use of their peacekeeping forces. That wouldn’t be “irresponsible.” Again, using pejorative conservative language helps them win the argument.

He buys into badly defined GOP’s goals: The Bush Administration has set goals for the Iraq occupation that may be unachievable: “train the police and military,” “institutionalize the legislature, the executive, and the judicial functions …; and rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure.” Unfortunately, the preceding are Donnie’s words, not Cheney’s or Rumsfeld’s. There is no reason to believe these goals can be achieved, certainly not without hundreds of billions of dollars in expenditure and many thousands more lost lives. Why should these (possibly unattainable) goals now become the Democratic Party’s?



>>>You don't seem to think that's worth the effort.
>>Because of the way we went about it as a nation has sufficiently alienated us from the rest of the world.
>
>So you would say that the popularity of the decisions we make is important?
>
>Of course it should always be a factor in foreign policy.
>
>So a more insightful question to ask would be, is our popularity more important than the ongoing oppression of millions of Iraqis?
>
>
>>I wholeheartedly agree that it is in the best interests of the rest of the world to see this come to a peaceful resolution. But it's not going to happen in the current political environment.
>>
>>I've not offered any suggestions, because we must have a 180 degree change in our administration before we can begin to discuss any resolution to the situation.
>
>Why?