Becky, you and I arguing different things. First, I defy you to find a credible subject-matter expert who would characterize Saddam Hussein as an Islamo-fascist.
Having said that, he was a dictator and a torturer and an all-around bad dude. But he was not and is not the threat faced by America today in terms of terrorism.
If we decided to remove him because he's a bad dude who abused and tortured his people, so be it. but that was NOT the case built by the administration and, imo, the reason public support for the war is waning is because one set of expectations was set in the run-up to the war and all attempts to recast the effort as removal of a bad dude have not succeeded.
If our role as a superpower is going to be to use our military in the removal of bad dudes and bad regimes, then that case has to be laid out for the Congress and for the public.
This whole thing was handled badly - from the case itself to the actual prosecution of the war. And, in perusing comments here at FR, I have discovered that quite a few posters over here feel the same way.
The enduring question remains: what next? I see two options. Begin withdrawing troops and force the Iraqis to stand on their own, or finally and at last commit overwhelming force and troops to the effort to secure Iraq. I'm split either way - I don't in my heart believe that just leaving them to devolve into civil war is a responsible course of action, but I would need to see some competence in any plan to send the additional 250K troops McCain suggests.
Final analysis: what, how or why we went in there is irrelevant at this point. It's like a tube of toothpaste - once you squeeze all the toothpaste out, it's virtually impossible to get it back in. Once we committed, the landscape of the effort changed and the question, for me, is what we do TODAY to compel the best possible outcome.
Our generals don't think we should leave. Our troops SURE don't think we should leave, but what do they know. They are just rubes stuck there.
I think this statement accurately represents the Democrat's consensus position on Iraq.
How convenient. Democrat's can not only criticize, but also demonize the twice-elected President of the United States, who went to war with the support of the Congress, after 17 UN Security Council resolutions, and the best they can come up with is to sit on the fence and not take a position.
Too bad the POTUS can't do that. He has to make decisions everyday, not waffle. The Democrats could have at least shown respect for that. They never did.
Well, now you have two of the the three handles of power, for the moment at least. Be careful what you ask for.