The problem isn't that naysayers undermined the war effort at later dates, the problem is sending this nation's forces into harm's way when significant portions of the vocal and voting public have not been convinced they are necessary. The problem isn't having a bunch of nations like Poland and Spain lining up to join the Coalition, the problem is when America shoulders the burden, and not even Canada is willing to go with us. If the threat is to all the civilzations of the West, why isn't more of the West involved?
But it comes down to a very important fact that Corwyn made in regards to the last post. Noone's really operating off the same sets of facts.
I wonder then, if Corwyn feels good that his sentiments were mostly echoed in Newsweek. (At least I thought they were...) But I'd wager cash money it ticks him off that Newsweek paid somebody a lot of cash to say something that he said for free.
Here's some of that article that I thought were pertinent (and even SAWB may like some of this):
President Bush did not lie about why he took the country to war. Like President Clinton, he genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; after all, American troops found much more WMD in Iraq in 1991 than prewar intelligence reports had indicated. So it was logical to think the same thing would happen again. At the same time, suggesting that intelligence was cooked to create a souffle of misleading certainty is hardly "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city," as Cheney said last week. We have proof now that policymakers did indeed cherry-pick the evidence. Contrary to the wind coming out of GOP's elephant echo chamber, no congressional committee reports debunked the cherry-picking, and it is simply false that Democrats had access to the same intelligence as the president.
Rather than obsessing over it, we should be holding a big national debate about whether the presence of U.S. troops reduces the insurgency or fuels it, whether timetables for withdrawal embolden the terrorists or motivate Iraqi forces to perform better. Instead of cut-and-run versus more-of-the-same, we need a few imaginative "Third Way" alternatives.
The stakes in Iraq are higher than in Southeast Asia 40 years ago. Failure would give Al Qaeda a huge base from which to kill us. But for now it looks as if we'll keep sinking in the quicksand, with no consensus, no substantive debate and no end to the finger-pointing. It's almost enough to make you nostalgic for Vietnam.
I think the article really makes a point that is necessary. Questioning the Administration is something we need to do, and is not 'giving comfort and succor to the enemy' as they maintain. We can't really fly off the handle and just abandon the place either, especially knowing that there is progress being made wether the MSM reports it or not. But we can't keep repeating 'stay the course,' and we can't just 'cut and run.' What else is on the table?