[Jim Noble]

While I agree with your sentiment that this is what SHOULD be done, I totally disagree about its political impact. Quite the contrary---do you SERIOUSLY think that John Effing Kerry would take a HARDER line on this?

You are correct as to the facts, but incorrect as to the implication.

Democracy (OK, republican government) isn't brain surgery.

If the situation in Iraq is not markedly better in October, Bush is going home in January.

YES, Kerry would be worse.

YES, slow and steady can be defended intellectually.

YES, the basic thrust of Administration policy is correct.

None of that matters. One of two people will be sworn in on January 20, 2005 (well, one of three, actually). If a "capture of Atlanta" moment does not occur between now and November 2, 2004, it won't be Bush.

Unfair? Perhaps.

But war is not a precise instrument, and the people will support any course of action that produces visible victory-but they won't support the status quo.

[LS]

Yah, I agree. My point with the poster was that for conservatives to carp about Bush---if it is concluded that in the real world he is doing all he can to win the war---is fruitless. To me, IF you think the WOT is necessary and important to win, there is only one vote in November.

Your "capture Atlanta" comment is interesting, and I wonder what the 1944 election would have looked like if the Battle of the Bulge had occurred in October (I know, the weather didn't permit it, but you know what I mean).