I had no doubt you'd play the nuke card if I denigrated the strength of our opponent, but I wanted to wait and see. Sure enough, that was your pavlovian comeback. Nuke 'em before they nuke us seems like it will be the next step in this deadly progression.
But let's move to another area. Was it too much for Americans to expect the administration to have a plan, a quiet diplomatic plan, in place to bring peace to the Middle East once we poured the precious blood of our sons and daughters into the sands of that godforsaken desert? Would it have been wrong to expect Bush and company to have charged into Iraq forearmed with a plan for the Israelis and their neighbors? I don't think that was too much to expect. But we see that nothing was planned for, nothing contemplated about how to bring an over-arching strategy to justify our expenditure of blood and treasure.
It was wrong to commit the American people to the Iraq War just so George W. Bush could finish his father's business. He needed to have a strategy for peace in the Middle East. He had none.
Tell me, where did I even suggest such action?
Moreover, wars don't always go the way one plans. The other side has some say in events. Consequently, I would expect our side to make mistakes, strategic and tactical -- as they have in every war in our history (with the possible exception of the Mexican War).
Such setbacks don't sour my attitude toward what seemed to me a necessary war in the first place. You disagree. And your disagreement is honest -- being based on how you see the facts of the matter. Still, now that the country is engaged, I feel safe in assuming you would prefer that we win.
I won't make the same assumption about the left, however. They have been instrumental in promoting the terrorist cause and denigrating the American one.
What was it Nathan Hale said...???