Reading your post I realize that I agree with you on a major point and am
guilty of imprecise writing.

The invasion of Iraq and deposition of Sadam was planned and executed
brilliantly. We didn't need anyone other nation's help. I don't know anyone
who was cheering louder than I was when the statues went down and I was
thinking, "Wow, a pampered rich kid from Texas really can make it as
Commander in Chief."

Getting troops to the center of Bagdad however was like having paratroopers
jump from a plane. Except for training, the only point in it is in what they
accomplish after their boots hit the ground. My pride and joy was based on
the assumption that the next phase would be planned and executed as well and
not, as it turned out, spectacularly bungled. It's the second phase that we
needed the cooperation of other nations for.

I don't think Iraq was invaded just for domestic political reasons. I still
think we should have invaded. I think though that the electoral dynamics
played a significant part in a reckless and foolish decision to invade
before there was an adequate plan and resources for what happened after the
U.S. boots were planted in the center of Bagdad.

Would I rather we fought terrorism overseas? You bet. To the extent we have
to deal with them after they cross our borders, there will be irresistible
(and occasionally real) pressure for TFR's and other restrictions on the
freedom of ordinary citizens. Military action however, as Iraq has shown, is
only a small part and the first steps in fighting terrorism. The rest
requires a lot of help, support, and good will from other countries.

As for the rest of your reply, we probably agree more than it appears. There
's a lot of playing off of words and reacting to quickly written newsgroup
jawing. Where we disagree, well, that's what makes this country great. It
doesn't mean one of us is more or less patriotic or "soft on terrorism". We
disagree on the scale and the details of what needs to be done to reach an
objective we agree on.

I'm not a one issue voter but, if I were, I'd be looking for that yellow
dog. It's not a republican vs. democrat thing in my mind. If a democrat had
done this I'd be even more offended because they guys I generally agree with
would have screwed up.

I know most of you out there are republicans so I ask you to subject
yourself to one honest and objective test. Look yourself straight in the
mirror tomorrow morning. Screw up all the honest objectivity you use when
looking at a lousy weather report and a need to be somewhere, and ask
yourself: if a few chads had dangled the other way and everything had
happened exactly as it has, what would you be saying right now?

--

Roger Long