It is a difficult situation to reconcile. I firmly believe the way we engaged Iraq was a mistake (a belief I've had since the start of the war), but looking forward, I understand we hold a great responsibility to avoid a worst case scenario.
But at the same time, I want George Bush held accountable for the mistake. I'm not referring to impeachment, but just being held accountable in a political sense is good enough. I don't want to give him everything he asks for, whether it be more troops, more time, what have you. And I think people, in a sense, want Iraq to fail at this point as a way to hold Bush accountable for the initial mistake of starting the war in the first place. And I sympathize with that notion. What message does it send that a manipulative war-mongering president gets everything he asks for? Now, if the cost of seeking that retribution weren't what it is (countless Iraqi lives, vast instability in the Middle East, future terrorist havens) I'd be all for it. Others think the dangers of letting presidents like George Bush get away with what he's done is a greater price to pay. Again, I find it difficult to reconcile.
Ace.. we've discussed how I don't like getting wrapped up in metaphors before
but what if there's a waterfall at the end of that river? do you swim to the shore, or go careening off the edge?
And perhaps I'm just naive in my views of Congress approving the use of force in Iraq... but just because Congress gave him the OK, that doesn't equate to a free pass from being held accountable. What George Bush did with the military with Congress' approval, as commander in chief, is still his own responsibility. If things go bad, he should bear the brunt of that responsibility. Congress gave Bush just enough rope to hang himself. Whether he does, is up to him. (.... there's a Saddam/hanging joke in there somewhere, i just know it.)