Why are so many so quick to jump to the conclusion that because I have some questions about the policies that put our soldiers over there, that I don't support them? It's an asinine conclusion, one that results from knee-jerk adherence to a party line. And it's getting tiring.
No, I object to a situation where our soldiers are sent into a war without a clear exit plan, without a long-term plan for victory.
I never accepted that Hussein had ties to al qaida (and none have been established); I never doubted he had WMD (though I'm beginning to), but I was never convinced that he posed a threat to the US. I was more than willing to support a policy of "war for oil", or war for some other material gain for the US; I was told, however, that a war in which the US somehow gained something was anti-American (and I still understand how that can be).
And the war of liberation was at best a bad use of American lives, and at worst, established a horrible precedet.
I can accept it as a part of the war on terror (even though the proof is sketchy). But Republicans went to great pains to say that no, Saddam was NOT an imminent threat, that we sent troops in because he might become an imminent threat. Talk about a frightening precedent!
And we still do not know how long we will be there.
In short, I haven't yet heard a good explanation of why we are there, and I hate to see fine American servicemen pay the price for a lousy policy.