SecretMethod70

You're not accounting for how closely the information was controlled leading up to the war. People who supported the war because "Iraq was behind 9/11"...they were wrong from the beginning, because it was very clear that that wasn't the case. The question of WMD's, though, was less clear, at least in the US media. Because of the way the issue was framed, both sides sounded reasonable and people had to decide which they believed more. I'd agree with you if the media had done its job better and made it more clear that the evidence was weak, but they didn't. Not everyone has the time or inclination to assume that they must go to non-US media sources to get a more accurate picture. Now... that has changed due to experience, but in 2003 that wasn't the case.

Continuing to support the war is a more clear cut issue...

only it isn't.

No question, it's going terribly, and "staying the course" is not an option. That said, the Powell Doctrine is very compelling. We broke it. There's a very healthy debate to be had regarding whether it's better for the Iraqi's for us to stay (though considerably alter our strategy), or for us to just leave. But I do think that that's where the discussion needs to be centered: what's best for the Iraqi's, and what do they want, not what's best for us. It sucks that the Bush administration got us into this mess, but that doesn't mean we can just pretend like we're not the country that is, in a large part, responsible for where Iraq is right now.

Personally, I think a responsible withdrawal is best, but that's largely because we're incapable of committing the time and resources necessary to fix the mess we've created. Because, at this point, we need to treat this like a whole new war if we're going to stick around, and we don't have the forces or the money for that.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling