The naysayers use the following argument:

The administration took us to war on faulty intelligence...in fact; they fabricated or embellished intelligence to take the country to war... The administration has no creditability and even outed an undercover CIA agent...

We don’t have a plan to get out... We don’t have a victory plan... So, we should cut our losses!

The administration, thinking the folks on the left will be laughed off the stage fails to react for a couple weeks allowing the comedy shows to paint the guilt portrayed on the administration... The administration, realizing the public is susceptible to liberal talking point lies repeated often enough to have creditability refutes the allegations on the basis of war but continues to not speak on open investigation of the outing of the CIA agent.

Enter War Hero congressman... How about we leave now? Let’s take our troops out of harm’s way and watch the Iraqi government fight the insurgents in Kuwait and help them “if” they need help.

So the people have a choice to make... what is one to believe? Cut and run or “stay the course”?

Let’s look at the problem objectively... The congress voted overwhelmingly to give GWB administration the authority to do exactly what he did. They placed no restrictions on his method. They have voted to support with funds the actions since the first bomb fell. The War plan, according to Bush administration, is to allow battlefield commanders to run the war, establish an Iraqi government, train their security force and leave when the security force can properly operate. (Assumed is that the force must be able to protect borders from Syria, Turkey and Iran in addition to protecting the Iraqi population.) That sounds like a plan! The National Intelligence Statement provided to the Congress supported the war action. There was no fabrication of intelligence or lie for a reason to go to war. The elected officials of both parties actually believed we should go to war with Iraq. To argue that Bush fooled them actually makes them a bigger FOOL!

OK, then why cut and run talk by a Democratic war hero? Is his position supporting Bush lied? Bush administration outed a CIA agent? Where does the traction to leave after such an investment of soldiers and tax dollars come from?

Recent news indicates the outing of a CIA agent was more like Nancy Peloicy being married to Dennis Kusinish, with Nancy working a desk job at CIA and sending Dennis to confirm Iraq didn’t want any yellow cake from Africa and nothing to do with an actual outing of a CIA agent.

So, what’s the thing that grabs the American public to change thinking on the war? One can only think the casualties. After all we don’t have an exit strategy for Korea, Germany or Bosnia Hertsokovina either and the public doesn’t seem to care. One can conclude a majority thinks that GWB outsmarted our stupid republican and democratic senators and congressmen... he lied about why war was necessary. He is covering for a person who outed a CIA agent and therefore we should cut and run.

If such thought is logical then why did he do it? If he was smart enough to fool a thousand lawyers in Congress by using “made up” intelligence and punishing opposing points of view why didn’t he plant some WMD to include yellow cake in Iraq to insure no one doubted the reasoning? Only a liberal can justify being fooled by an idiot from Texas yet can’t explain why he stopped being so smart to continue his plan to feed big oil.

So if Bush did it on purpose he had to be pretty cunning... don’t you think he could have made a lot more money using such brilliance in a way that left him looking a little better? Are wars to have no casualties, or less than ten to be acceptable? Would we tell the Army to cut and run if the terrorist were doing the bombing in American weddings, funerals and stores and against our police stations?

What's the plan?

The problem with the issue is that not everyone is on the same page of music when it comes to this war and everything related. You can issue your opinion and group with people that may agree and dislike the opinions of others that don’t, but is everything really on the table to truly look at in relation to the war? A simple point in which I don’t like the war for is basic. We are using troops to attempt a massive change in cultural thought, I don’t know why this seems odd to me but I don’t know of any intense training issued by the army that would help suit individual soldiers and their leaders for this, they are trained to fight basically. Another option is that loved ones or important people will of course become hurt/killed on both sides, and barring some moral stance of being the right one in a war, both sides will become that much more bitter of each other in regards to the situation when ultimately the current desire is to foster and environment of change, a big one at that. Also, its not like the war in Iraq is the first and only thing to generate negative feelings by the Muslim community towards Americans, this combined with other perceptual issues related I really doubt were taken into account when this war was being planned and decided on in the early stages.

I also do not agree with simply using force. People have thoughts and emotions in a physical sense. You don’t wake up with love for a person you do not know or have never met, nothing in that sense as far as I can see has been truly taken into account for the reasons why some Muslims decide to commit terrorist acts, or why terrorism even exists. I hear terms that would touch on such, but there is never any heavy dialogue about such being chatted on, not in the government it would seem to be also.

Plus the fact that chronologically speaking, the reasons that feed into this war as by the officials in government that seem to support such have changed so much, its just hard for me to want to agree to the course of action they deemed the fit one. Many Americans for various reasons agree that the war in Iraq has become a mess in many ways, and furthermore simply may want to escape a Vietnam type conflict. The U.S soldiers, whatever amount there were have been placed in a rather large population with a rather large and culturally conservative and diverse populous. This is even made worse by the situation that has been generated by the conflict and I would guess that true lack of intelligence on why or how to combat such, or such I would say would not have come to be the current situation.

The current course of action is to make democratic and stabilize Iraq, I guess that would be the exit strategy. Well, if the politicians were so sure about this, its all they would have to say and stick to. I don’t think its that simple. If the claims being made by other politicians were truly just tripe, do you not think that such politicians would think before speaking on such issues, its not light to claim making up false intelligence to support a war, I don’t think that counts as a little white lie in anyone’s book. I did find it funny though that we would not share are intelligence to be studied by other nations when asking such nations for support before the war at the U.N. Again, no WMD to date has been verified, it seems our presence works in favor for terrorists and recruiting, and I don’t see the U.S armed forces being able to make a true difference in perception that would undermine how the insurgents are being successful.

So I guess the true question is how long do Americans accept the current course, at what point do we say it wont work under the current directions and decide for change, another three years, four years. I don’t want to think I supported something this bloody for that long that never panned out.