When the Democrats sweep up more seats in congress next year, and win the presidency, I could ask you why you couldn't listen to criticism.
Constructive criticism is one thing, but your posts appear to cross the line into destructive criticism.
Politics should end at the water's edge. That goes for Bush's foes on the left, and it should go for Bush's foes on the right as well.
Criticize Bush for his border policy or any other domestic policy you like. But no parent wants their child to go to war for a controversial subject. Once war is engaged, patriotic citizens *must* support it completely. Who would want to die for something unless there was simply no question but that it was a valiant cause?
I look to Charles Lindberg for inspiration on this. Before WW2 he was the leader of the powerful America First movement. There was talk about him running for president, and his popularity in those days was higher than FDR's. But FDR called out the goon squads and rioted at some of Lindberg's speeches, and used the media so smear his name and label him a Nazi (that people to this day believe).
But despite this, on the day of Pearl Harbor Lindberg was dedicated to victory. He stopped all public criticism of FDR on war issues and did every thing he could to help fight the battle. Since FDR would not allow him to resume his commission in the Air Corps, he managed to become a consultant to various aircraft companies, and eventually flew in combat as a civilian, risking his life in a war that he tried so hard to stop in the first place.
Once the battle is engaged, any patriotic American, even if they were anti-war as Lindberg was, should support the effort to the death. Anything short of that is not acceptable.
Criticism of the commander-in-chief about war issues is very detrimental to the effort. Even if the criticism is correct, it's necessary for the country to put on a united front to the enemy, and to inspire the confidence in our soldiers that risking their life in battle is for a just cause.