You're covering a lot of topics, and I can agree with some of your thoughts (like our representatives aren't paid enough). But you're buying too many of the cartoon arguments put forward by too many on the right. I can't think of any responsible Senator or Representative that wants us to lose in Iraq.

I thought there were good reasons for going after Saddam in 2003, as can be seen by checking the Search (e.g. [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/board/search/?field_searchUser=49&field_searchSubject=&field_searchContent=saddam&field_searchSignature=&field_searchForum=-1&field_boardid=1&submit_ok%3Amethod=Search&start=67|generally], or [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=81307|specifically]), but the execution of the occupation can hardly be called anything more positive than incompetent. What makes the screw-ups worse is that the Administration refused to change tactics when it was clear that too few soldiers were on the ground to pacify the country. Something's got to change if we are to have any hope of achieving a reasonable outcome.

We have 2 choices now: 1) Substantially increase force levels to pacify the country; 2) Leave in an orderly fashion, sooner rather than later. Being an occupying force with too little strength to keep the peace does nothing but embolden those who want increased violence. Since there's little sign in Washington of #1 being seriously considered, the default choice is #2. Choice #3 - "Stay the Course" - has been tried for over 3 years now and isn't achieving our goals.

As a child I remember seeing the evening news reports about Viet Nam (as it was spelled in those days) and wondering: Why aren't we winning? How long is this going to go on? Am I going to have to fight there too? I don't think I need to tell you that there are getting to be too many parallels to those days.

Recognizing that #2 is the only choice on the table doesn't mean that it's the same as "denial and tribute and retreat".

If you don't think that #2 is the only choice on the table, what do you propose?

It's hard to say that the Iraq war has been a success when we've achieved 2 of the [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=95855|8 goals Rumsfeld laid out].

How would you feel if Al Gore had been president the last ~6 years and the same things had happened? Would you accept a "stay the course" plan from Albert? Why accept it - and the accompanying rhetoric - from George? Why accept the arguments of a group that you call "criminally inept"?

Watch their deeds, not their rhetoric.

I expect that some things will get done in the next 2 years. But we'll see.

Cheers,
Scott.