[johnb838]

I don't understand a General in the military having such an anti-war attitude.

I don't either. I thought it was the job of the military to prepare for war, all the time, in everything they do. Then it is the job of the Civilian Authorities (President & Congress) to determine when war is the right thing to do, and then it's the military's job to prosecute it with extreme prejudice. "Anti-war" and "Four Star General" are two words that don't go together. I would think "anti-war" would be grounds to relieve a commander all on its own.

[judywillow]

I don't understand a General in the military having such an anti-war attitude.

It isn't terribly difficult to understand the problems which democrats and liberals are having with the recent operation in Iraq. A minimal listing of aspects of the conflict guaranteed to cause angst and dismay amongst them would have to include:

• It was successfully conducted by a popular Republican president.
• It freed over 20 million people from a brutal oppression.
• It eliminated a major terrorist threat against us and our allies.
• It put the fear of God into other outlaw regimes, preventing future wars.
• It eliminated the need for our keeping troops in Saudi Arabia.
• It paved the way for a first Arab democracy in the region, thus taking a first major step towards resolving the most major problem in the entire middle east.
• The DNC did not benefit from the operation.
• No narco-terrorists or other criminals benefited from the operation.
• No innocent christians were killed.

Like I say, you can see why the dems are crying.