Hey Kevin:

Part of the reason for my post was to address what i saw was an 'inaccuracy' in David's channelling of Rush where he posts:

>>Most Americans can see it for what it is and not for how the liberals want to paint it.

Regarding your comment "... unleashed a much larger attack on Iraq...", i believe a lot of people who, according to David "want the US to lose" (i.e. administration critics), agree that a larger troop presense was required to prevent the situation we have now. So, in a roundabout way, admin critics and your position (regarding Iraq) are similar. But at this point, its another opportunity lost. How long have we been training the troops? All the while, violence has trended upward. So if "stay the course" simply means "train the troops", then i would like our congress to have a real debate instead of what we now get w/ 'cut and run' labelling.

>
>58% disapprove of GWB performance
>61% disapprove of GWB foreign policy
>61% disapprove of GWB handling of Iraq
>52% say military casualties & cost not worth removing saddam
>53% say decision to attack iraq was the wrong decision
>57% say US should reduce # of troops 35% say maintain troop levels
>
>Hey, Chris...
>
>I'm part of the 58%. I think GWB has been a poor president...and I'm not alone...because he hasn't gone far enough.
>
>I'm part of the 61%. I disapprove of his foreign policy and handling of Iraq...by that, I mean we should have unleashed a much larger attack on Iraq and Iran. We would have been totally justified in bombing Tehran since 1979.
>
>Still want to use me as part of your stats? ;)
>
>As for those who feel that Hussein's actions were not worth removing...Iraq REPEATEDLY violated the U.N. Sanctions after the Gulf War, ordered the torture of countless political dissidents in Iraq, diverted funds to use for his own benefit, and has been linked to funding bin Laden.
>
>
>Kevin