Witchita,

I would accept that as “opposition in good faith” if there weren’t so many counter examples. There seems to be ample evidence of the Democrat’s VP Nominee in Waiting having said that Iraq was an “imminent threat”. We have Kerry who voted to give the president the ability to make war but now says he was just supporting the “threat” to make war. We have Dem after Dem after Dem voting, over several years, to condemn and threaten regime change in Iraq until regime change in Iraq actually happens and then they start screaming it was wrong.

Is the Democratic position that all wars are wrong or that only wars run by Republican administrations (even if approved as US policy during a Democratic administration) are wrong?

I keep hearing some of those who do not like the current administration claim that its failure to make its case is damning. Yet I had no real trouble following the basic outlines of the administration’s case and looking at the world situation from my own limited perspective and with the limited information available to me and coming to the conclusion that there was a good case and, therefore, supporting the effort.

Yet on the Democrat side (the leadership) I have heard that they supported the effort up to the point that an effort was made and that now they have a better plan but for the life of me I just don’t see what that plan is let alone how it could be better.

What case are they making? Should we be fighting a war against terror/islamofacism? If so, how should we proceed (is there more here than “gaining allies” or “through the UN”)? If not, why not?