Many dems would disagree with that. The flavor of the day is to say it was wrong for going to war in Iraq. The "doing it badly" part is a huge understatement. That's usually what happens when civilians make military decisions.
So does McCain. I think Thompson is a great actor, but one senate term is kind of light political experience for a President. Hillary and Obama and most others suffer from the same fault. A president should ideally have 15 or 20 years of political experience, some of it in Washington and some of that running an executive branch department, not just on Capitol Hill.
He's catching it for both. The public support was for the war on Al Qaida, not the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Wrong. Polls show that Americans intially supported the Iraq war. Public opinion changed when things started to go badly and no WMDs were found. Wikipedia CNN
Exactly Amigo. Americans had the appetite to bomb the hell out of anyone at that point. I'm not so sure we had nation-building and civil war moderation in mind. Shock and Awe was good enough for me. Imagine if we had just bombed the dog turds out of them and left. Would the situation be any different (ignoring our human and financial cost incurred)? I think not. And that's a damned shame.
So did the democrats see John Kerry who was in Vietnam that ran for president and lost to George Bush!:lol:
i didnt write clearly. you are right. but, if the war had gone well, he would not be catching sh!t. in fact, he'd have a 60% app rating and the gop would have a good shot at the w.h. (which they do not now)
but dont you want a prez that does what is right, not what is popular? in a funny way, thats been his credo. those same 99.9% of americans dont have the intelligence/experience/knowledge, etc to make those decisions--so what they want at any point in time on one particular issue has (should have) little value
