Supporting a "cut and run" policy in Iraq is wrong in my view as well, we've invested a ton of money, blood, and time in that country, we need to see it through to the end.
That sounds a lot like throwing good money after bad to me.
Iraq was invaded on the basis of lies and
fabricated/falsified intelligence. What is it that we're trying to prove by staying there now? How "tough" we are? I think that would be counterproductive pride. America lost in Iraq before the first US bomb hit Baghdad. We lost because We The People allowed ourselves to be played for suckers by our government.
Most Americans have finally come to realize that invading Iraq was a mistake and has had no effect whatsoever on US national security. There is
nothing stopping any terrorist from coming across the US border
right now and blending into the population in order to prepare for a strike. If the current administration cared about US national security, then it would pull all US troops out of Iraq and use them to protect the US border.
THAT would be a true conservative solution, as opposed to the neocon way. It would save hundreds of billions of dollars, US lives and limbs, and America's reputation around the world.
Getting back to the main question of this thread, I doubt that ANY of the neocon GOP candidates (that is, anyone but Ron Paul, who is basically a traditional conservative) can beat the Democratic nominee. Most Americans hate Bush, and they hate Congress for not standing up to Bush on the issue of Iraq when they were elected to do so. Why would they elect someone who promises more of the same?