Provided a)you have a plan to set up elections and a SECULAR constitution (not some eliot "the butcher" abrams inspired dictator, please); b)your little multi-national friends do not LOOT Iraq (like British Petroleum did Iran for decades, hence the problems today; or like was done in Africa for centuries). We're wasting time - do the deed, with these provisos.
I suggest you get on the stick and find a candidate who can beat him. The Dems haven't come up with one yet.
Sorry, but the "Curse of the Bambino" affects presidential elections as well. Of course, he hasn't drowned any young women.
The thing is, bush and powell are basically right. Inspections are a farce - inspectors should be like auditors, not private eyes; show them the records and if records don't exist, withdraw from the investigation. But he's handled this politically so ineptly (politically in a FP sense) that he's boxed in. He's let the idiots from France and Germany get the upper hand, with his only real ally Tony Blair and a bunch of dictators from the emirates and kuwait. Tony Blair being bush's biggest ally - my goodness.
Not a bad idea Tuwho. So you're not a flaming pacifist, you just don't like the moves Bush has made. Fair enough, yes he could do some things differently, I agree. But I still think we're basically okay. Everyone knows France and Germany are really covering their own you-know-whats and trying to make more euros off the suffering of Iraqi people, so I don't see them as "moral equivalents" in this matter. By the way, you are way off on John Kerry. If any Democrat has a shot, it's John Edwards of North Carolina. The Democrats have to find a way to peel off a few Southern states and Great Plains states or they'll lose again in 2004. Edwards can do that. If Kerry leads the ticket, the Democrats will go 0-for-the-Heartland again just like 2000. God help a Kerry-Leiberman 2004 ticket. They wouldn't have a prayer.
