some call it hand-wringing, some call it determined analysis. what do you all think? http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2004/0920/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent2 World > Terrorism & Security posted September 20, 2004, updated 10:30 a.m. Maybe our plan wasn't the best, but that's why we'll do much better next time when we have to overturn a dangerous regime (Iran, Syria, Sudan). Arguing over the past at this point is pointless unless you're gonna point out crucial mistakes that can be corrected right now or flaws in strategy that can be adjusted right now. Who are you, John Kerry? Hey, and if we need that many more troops, are you gonna promise the president all the money he needs to increase the army significantly without forcing him to cut other programs you have a vendetta against? You're not the president! Who cares what YOU would do? Oh, by the way, Sen. McCain, the military just announced an ambitious plan to take the sanctuaries in December with the Iraqi army. Okay, I respect you guys for being mavericks, and that is good 99.9% of the time, but when you start reading straight from John Kerry's talking points, I get worried. Who do you want to win anyway? IMO, I am glad Blair was for regime change, regardless of WMD, he has always been the humanitarian PM, concerned for the welfare of the Iraqi people under the evil of oppression, just as he has used military action to help Kosovo, Sierra Leonne, East Timor and Afghanistan. and hey, i'm tired of this argument over the rationale about Iraq. Even w/o WMD, we needed to make good on the terrible mistake we made back in 91. We left the Iraqi people under the control of a brutal madman, and we returned to fix our mistake by liberating them and taking care of Saddam's regime. What the hell is wrong with that? I think that's quite honorable and pretty damn smart.