Yes, he really admits that it was a"mistake" though, lest anyone think he is joining the antiwar movement, he considers it a"worthy" one.

David T. Beito - 10/20/2006

Of course, Goldberg is smoking something if he assumes that holding such a vote will even be logistically possible. Sadr's seizure today of an Iraqi city is only one indicator of the shrinking authority of the Iraqi government. The Brits stood down, the Iraqi government stood down, and Sadr stood up:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/20/iraq.sadr.ap/index.html

Stephan Kinsella - 10/20/2006

Mark, of course I'm sympathetic to this, as a political point... but I think it really does not follow from Goldberg's reasoning. I think his idea is that if the Iraqis voted, they probably would actually vote to keep the troops there, and that would help show more legitimacy for their effort, helping give them more support in the area and defusing the cause of the insurgents. A US vote would not have that effect.

Mark Brady - 10/19/2006

Goldberg continues, "I think we should ask the Iraqis to vote on whether U.S. troops should stay."

On that reasoning, why not ask the Americans to vote on whether U.S. troops should stay?