Norman, yes you did. My apologies. Thats the only honest answer there could be. Which tells me that despite all the jabbering otherwise, the Dem leaders KNOW this would be a very bad move for them.
The true story here is that our Congress AND our President screwed the pooch badly on this one. Politics are costing soldiers their lives.

They were...of course, we were flying over there territory under UN mandate, but they were.
There were terrorists in Iraq and even some organized ones. The question is could we have dealt with them without taking out Saddam. I think so for a large portion of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
I don't claim that they are innocent. The ones that voted for the Iraq resolution get some of my blame....GWB and his Administration get most of my blame....but those members of Congress get some too...

Truth be told, I prefer it when people disagree with what I post, Justme... I come in here for the arguments, not the compliments. (Though, I do accept both *L*)

As far as Iraq shooting at US planes goes, to be fair, they were flying in Iraqi airspace at the time - you don't think the North Koreans would take a shot at a US plane that strayed across the DMZ?

I don't argue that there were no terrorists in Iraq - of course there were some... Al-Zarqawi was operating with a sympathetic Kurdish group, for example. My main point is that there were no ties between Saddam's regime and any Al-Queda sponsored groups. Bin Laden was just as much Saddam's enemy as Bush was.

I agree with you completely on the whole political games thing - I think by engaging in these cheap tricks with military funding while the soldiers are in the field is waaaaay beyond the pale. If you're going to try to repeal the President's authority to wage the war, fine go ahead and do it... but in the meantime, it's complete and utter bullshit to impede his abilitity to wage the war - this kind of thing is what puts soldiers' lives on the line.

What I'd like the Democrats to do is to put themselves in the boots of a soldier in Iraq. If you put a deadline in place, you're acknowledging that the war is lost... so all of your buddies were maimed and died for nothing. How anxious are you going to be to join them? Nobody wants to be a casualty... but especially nobody wants to be the last casualty in a lost war. So how gung-ho are you going to be? Not very, right? Well, the problem with that is that while you keep your head down for a few more critical seconds, your buddy might be getting blasted away. This kind of game is going to get people killed.

If you're in the war, fine. If you're out, equally fine. But have it one way or the other - none of this pansy-footing around. That's just the way I see it.

True, but by the same token the Defense Department is supposed to have detailed war plans for every contingency on hand. In the wake of 9/11 they didn't have one for US military action in Afghanistan - for weeks while Ground Zero and the Pentagon were still smoldering Rumsfeld had to go into those NSC meetings where they were planning responses empty-handed. I can't imagine the grief his Generals and Admirals were subjected to when he came back from the White House situation room, can you?

Yeah, maybe, but that conflict was so reliant on the diplomatic efforts...that's why the State Department and the CIA took the lead. And to be honest with you, Cordelier, there really wasn't much of a US war plan to it, at least not in the traditional sense. Send in the Special Forces with their laptops and comms equipment to perform precision calls for fire...and let the Northern Alliance do the heavy fighting.

Damn!!! Wanted to argue with you. Stop being so damn reasonable.
I've stated in another thread how I have felt since November. The games being played now should have been obvious when the Pelosis and Reids were voted in. What effect did that have on the soldiers morale?
Dems claim they were given a mandate to get the US out of Iraq. If they really believe that, then do it. Or honestly make an attempt to salvage whatever can be salvaged. Don't undermine the surge (which many dems called for).
Use some of the energy spent trying to get Rove on trying to help our troops.
Bring in experts YOU trust and get ideas.
Investigate and FIX the intelligence failures that led to this fiasco.
Take the credit if Iraq goes well...I don't care. Just stop playing with soldiers lives.

The point is, though... how well do you figure it went over with Rumsfeld to have to play a supporting role to anyone? Let alone the CIA, with whom he fought numerous long-running battles going back to the 70's.... Did you ever wonder why Rumsfeld never got a spot in the Reagan/Bush Administrations? Because Bush, Sr. hated his guts - and a lot of that was from the battles he fought as CIA Chief against Rumsfeld in the 70's under Ford.

*LOL* I'm sure we'll find something to argue about sooner or later, Justme. I don't think it's going to be on this issue, though - I pretty much agree with everything you're saying.

It's too bad you Americans can't be like the ancient Roman Republic - they used to elect two counsels every year... one to handle domestic affairs and one to handle foreign relations. I've always figured the Democrats are best domestically and the Republicans on foreign affairs. It's rare that you seem to get a President who can do both.... *L* But then again, I guess these days you'd settle for a President who could master either.