PD, Alex and other people supporting Kerry.

[RawAlex]

Mike, I think you have to seperate out the issue into two parts:

1 - would you have gone in there in the first place? For Kerry, the answer would not have been the same as Bush, at least not at the same time. Timing is everything, and the end results show how rushing into a job can be a mistake

2 - now that the troops are in there, do you just pull them out and leave? I think the answer from both sides is "no", Bush without a qualification, and Kerry with a huge "but"... that but being that the UN, other countries, including members of the Arab union need to be brought in to take over the situation and relieve the US troops. It is clear a military force is needed AS A RESULT OF AN ILL ADVISED INVASION, but keeping it as a US lead force will only lead to more confrontations.

This last week, the well known arab apparently leading the bombing campaign has pledged his support for Al Qaida, so much so that the group has changed it's name to Jihad Al Qaida. Bush is succeeded in bringing the war on terror TO Iraq, by creating the needed situation to allow these anarchists to work.

Just having the US troops up and leave on November 3rd would not be a good idea, but the reasons for having to stay and the intentions for that stay are different on both sides. I also think Bush would "be there for as long as there is a reason to stay" and Kerry is more of a "leave as soon as we can without leaving a huge mess behind".

Without the ill advised invasion of Iraq, we wouldn't need to have this discussion now, and there would almost certainly be less terrorists in that country.

Alex