I read your about me page. I am certainly not stalking you since you are the first person I've posted to on this site. I think you are a paranoid, delusional loser if you think anyone would actually waste their time "stalking" you in cyberspace. I just noticed your ignorant comment and thought I would reply. I see you are not intelligent enough to refute what I posted so you accuse me of being a liberal. I don't think everyone who does not share your misinformed, warped world view is a liberal. The fact that you think it is Powell's fault that France did not join the coalition demonstrates your utter ignorance and cluelessness about the events leading up to the war. I'll repeat, France would not have sent troops to invade Iraq redgardless of anything we did. France had an economic interest in keeping Hussein in power, and they have been reluctant to use military force on anyone since about 1918 including the Nazis Army that invaded their country.
Please point out where exactly I did not make any sense. I suppose you think that the insurgency was dealt with effectively immediately following the fall of Baghdad and that we did not need more troops in the initial invasion force. The reason the insurgency has been gaining strength for the the past 3 years is because naive, dellusional people such as yourself thought it was a good idea to pussyfoot around Iraq like we were the Salvation Army rather than declaring martial law from the start and absolutely crushing the Baathists and there will to fight. I suppose you also think it was a good idea to allow Sadr and all the other Shiite militias to exist. You must also think it was a good idea to not go into Fallujah in April 2004 because the Iraqi's didn't want us to. I was in favor of going to war with Iraq. I was not in favor of using the US Armed Forces as a bunch of social workers. People like you never learned the real lesson of Vietnam which is that our military can't succeed with both hands tied behind its back.