Henry,

No hard feelings! BTW, I LOVE "Tombstone", one of my favorite movies!

You said :

"Liberals feel that the military cannot make mistakes and are quick to blame the President."

There is alot of information out there that leads me to believe that Bush disregarded certain advice and input from his military leaders. Who else is to blame for his refusal to heed the advice of his military advisors?

I realize that war is war, no one has a crystal ball, and mistakes will be made, by whomever. However, Bush lacked a clear justification for invading Iraq, when he did. THAT and THAT ALONE is MY basis for opposing the war; the lack of "just cause".

If I believed in the rationale and justification for going to war in Iraq at that point, then I would not have a problem with our casualty rate, which BTW is VERY LOW by any reasonable standard; or our progress in stabilizing the country, recognizing the difficulty of the task at hand, which you have so aptly illustrated. It's not that I lack resolve, or commitment; I never complained during the first Gulf War, nor during our efforts in Afghanistan. Nor is it that I expect 100% success. Not nearly!

But the "cause" has to be worth the sacrifice. I feel that Bush lacked such a cause, and seized upon an opportunity which was politically convenient, and that he resorted to military force too quickly, too easily, and too eagerly. Using force may very well have been inevitable and unavoidable, but other solutions were not tried or given a reasonable opportunity, if only to show our good faith, and demonstrate that we did not want war and prove to EVERYONE that we tried to avoid it.

Instead, it now appears to me, and many other Americans, not to mention much of the world, that Bush used faulty intel as an excuse to rush into a war which was politically advantageous for him, economically advantageous for his base constituents, and in which he held a personal stake as a result of past relations with Hussein, without a bonafide, legitimate, just cause. In other words, with a personal agenda, from which he stood to gain, personally. It SMACKS of opportunism and politics, not acceptable as a basis for waging war; the price is simply too high, there is no margin for error where going to war is concerned, and this is unprecedented in our history.

And even if that is not completely true, the mere appearance of that damages our standing and credibility in the world, and in the world of today, we cannot afford such a perception, we cannot afford to have our standing and credibility diminished. All the more reason we do not rush into such actions without demonstrating reasonable efforts to avoid doing so, without due reflection, without due course. So we do not APPEAR to be doing so out of some other motivation which is convenient or otherwise advantageous, and that our action is CLEARLY JUST and unavoidable. THAT is the "global test" to which Kerry refers.

We should never go to war on suppostions, and maybes, and "we thinks". We have to be 100% certain! It is not our success which must be 100%, but rather, the certainty of our justification that has to be 100%. Mistakes can be made while undertaking the war effort, but NOT when making the decision to go to war in the first place.

Name one other military conflict in our history where we ever came away from it with egg on our face? Name one other military action on the part of the United States where we had to admit after the fact, "Oops, our intel was flawed. But he was a bad guy anyway and we're better off with him gone." :rolleyes: Oops don't cut it where war is concerned! Lives are lost and ruined forever over war, and it is not a risk we take lightly, without being CERTAIN that it cannot be avoided. And the end NEVER justifies the means.

Even at whatever point Bush decided to use force, he could have chosen to use more limited and measured force, like limited air strikes, for a prolonged period, for example, before committing ground troops. With all of his "intel" why not pound selected targets, relentlessly, while still applying diplomatic and international pressure? Why the rush, why the urgency? With all of our technology and all of our military and intel assets we could have virtually shut down Iraq, and crippled her infrastructure. From a military standpoint, Hussein wouldn't have been able to sneeze without us knowing about it, metaphorically speaking!

And while removing Hussein is a postive it was not, nor should it have been, our mission. Again, the end does not justify the means. And this sets a dangerous precedent. Are we now going to assume the posture that we are empowered (divinely perhaps?) to go around forcing regime changes anywhere we have an issue with another sovereign country's leadership?

As far as sanctions, you make a very good point. I still think we could have come up with something more creative to apply pressure to Hussein. While I was concerned for his people over those sanctions, my attitude was always, that is Hussein's fault. When they get tired enough of it, THEY'LL get rid of him We can only be expected to do so much. At some point they have to accept responsibility for their own country.

Bush may indeed have goggles on... BEER GOGGLES! Or POWER GOGGLES! Please, a mistake is a mistake, we really need to own this, finish it, and move on. While removing Hussein was certainly a positive, we are clearly no more safe today than we were when he was in power. If that were true, then why is Cheney telling everyone that we could face a terrorist attack using WMD's in one of our major cities?

You also said:

"Only the Liberals are quick to say we are losing the war. Their optimism is pathetic, despite the fact our losses are minimal compared to the overall force."

First, I have never said we were losing. I don't believe for a minute that we are, or that we will. But this may not be "winnable" by any reasonable, objective definition of "victory". And wether or not it is or isn't, at what cost? And to what end? I am not a pessimist, nor do I lack resolve or conviction, but I AM A REALIST!!

Is that your "faith-based" intellect coming through? Perhaps not in God, but in Bush and America? Guess what, Henry, we don't always "WIN"! Look at Korea, look at Vietnam. Did we "WIN" either of those "police actions" as they have been called? You have on some goggles too, I see. With red, white, and blue lenses. Your youthful romanticism and idealism about our country and our military is touching, really; but take off the glasses and take a long, hard look at the world around you, and at history. You need a dose of realism to temper your youthful exuberance. This isn't a Spielberg movie, or a video game. America may very well NOT win the day in Iraq. We certainly won't LOSE, but that is NOT the same as WINNING.

And in light of the recent admissions by the Bush administration that there were no WMD's, nor any link between Iraq and Al-Queda, or 9-11, a clear distinction must be made between the war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism. Despite all of Bush's propaganda and disinformation to the contrary, diseminated over the last two plus years, one has nothing to do with the other. The war in Iraq and the war on terrorism are two different things, separate and distinct topics. So winning in Iraq does not equate to winning the war on terror. And the war on terror is where we should be focusing our efforts, and THAT is a war we most certainly cannot afford to LOSE!!

One last point, I know this is very long, I do apologize, but you also said:

"Do Liberals go to their child's soccer games and cheer for the opposing team only because they don't agree with the coach?"

That is not the first time you have said that. Please don't say that, Henry. That is a terrible thing to say, I am personally very deeply insulted and offended by that.

Do you think for one minute that I am cheering for the terrorists? Do you think I am on their side? Do you think that I want them to win? How can you equate me opposing an action taken by my country with rooting for our enemy? I don't want us to lose, I just didn't want us to start this in the first place, at least not yet, not that way, at that point in time. I don't know ANYONE in this country, any AMERICAN, anyway, who is CHEERING for the terrorists.

That is a TERRIBLE, HURTFUL, and DISRESPECTFUL thing for you to say to ANY AMERICAN! All your rhetoric about Michael Moore and others is GARBAGE!! You have NO RIGHT to label people like that. That is nothing but groundless, ludicrous, rhetoric, and hate speech.

I have EVERY RIGHT to disagree with the President, and to voice my disagreement, that is the foundation of our freedom, otherwise, WE would be living in a DICTATORSHIP! That in NO WAY makes me an ENEMY OF THE STATE, AN AGENT OF AL-QUEDA, or can be interpreted to mean that I AM CHEERING FOR THE OTHER TEAM.

And BTW, this aint no soccer match! THIS IS WAR, AND DEATH, AND MASSIVE DESTRUCTION, AND PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE BEING DESTROYED, AMERICAN AS WELL AS INNOCENT IRAQI.

Yeah, call me crazy, Henry, call me a pacifist, call me a traitor, call me an agent of Al-Queda, call me WHATEVER YOU WANT! I AM ALWAYS AGAINST WAR!!

Put it in the context that the anti-abortion rights lobby does.:

I'm not anti-American, or even anti-war,

I'M PRO-LIFE!!!

How about you, Henry, does that make you

PRO-WAR?

Like the way they tell me I am

PRO-ABORTION??


I'm not ANTI-WAR ... I'm PRO-LIFE!!!!

(Which are you? Pro-life, or Pro-war?)

Respectfully Yours,

Jim

P.S. "Ah'm yo Huckleberry."