"No, the war in Iraq continues, the Commander in Cheif did not state the war was over.

You're right. The Pentagon said that "major combat operations" are over. But the President didn't say the war was over. "

Exactly. You could say Bush senior made the mistake of optimistically declaring Gulf I over. It's understandable, it's what people and politicans like to do- to say you have a glass water when it's half full.
It's also sort of like "promoting" the idea of peace after a miltary operation, you want to have the war end, so you declare it's a reality.
It's not a lie. It's "we have a cease-fire agreement- the war is over".
Both parties have agreed to end the war, so the war has ended.
It's like saying you own a car, when there still might be some problems- the car might be a lemon, your loan could somehow fail to go through, or lose your job and can't make the payments.

' "We are rapidly squandering what good will we had."

This is only true in the rather confused dreams of the Left.

Oh, yeah. Of course. That's why they're shooting at our soldiers and hollering anti-American stuff in the streets. Just like the French did during the D-Day invasion. Not.'

Not all the French cooperated. And the Iraqi invasion is certainly over.
The D-day invasion ended once there was enough allied troops on the ground that it made extremely unlikely that German forces could push the allied forces off the continent- that took about a week or two.
The invasion of Iraq was pretty much a done deal when coalition forces successful entered Iraq- within the first couple of days.
In forest fire fighting, you first contain the fire, then you knock it down, then there is the mop up- mop up can be long and a boring process, but it's neccesary. Most forest fire fighter want to be smoke jumper or at least Hotshots, some of the less adventurous enjoy the grind of mop up- at least sometimes you can get showers if the fire is big enough.

"The Iraqis who were happy to get rid of Saddam were expecting only short interruptions in water and electricity supplies and other such amenities. When restoration of these little details was not forthcoming, suddenly it looked like they had had civil oppression taken away and civil collapse put in its place. They, too, had rather confused dreams."

If all the Iraqis are concerned about is material comforts, then they are similar to the spoiled and clueless Americans. I believe the Iraqis know what they have gone through and would rather have a brighter future, and therefore are willing to work for it.

"Only after people around the world pointed out repeatedly that the one who destabilizes must restore order did the US administration make moves in that direction."

I think the Miltary was way ahead of this, and didn't need these people pointing it out.

"But to people who have real information, or people who drawing conclusions from real information, of course, we want dialog.

How about people with real questions, who want real information, and are not getting it?"

That would be good. But being a good reporter is not asking "tough questions" of the Sec of Defense. First, these "tough questions" usually just show how clueless these reporters are. The next variety of "tough questions" are along the line of "Did you stop beating your wife, yet" , or perhaps slightly more clever than that. The real information comes from the press investigating, rather than pontificating, or relying on press releases.

'Look there isn't "much" dialog in, "We hate Bush".'

"What someone on the Left says:
"I hate the whole idea of a pre-emptive first strike against a small country. "
Well, where to start? First, what does the size of the country have to do with it? A follow on: Does the person who hates this, hates it regardless of whether it's Repub or Dem?
Next, "pre-emptive first strike" has an assocation with nuclear "war planning" or also known as MAD type doctrine. Next, just the word "pre-emptive" is language use in the UN to describe an illegal war. Iraq was only "pre-emptive" in the context of a "War against Terrorism". In 1998 Clinton bombed Iraq (bombing a country in a act of war, this means you are at war, and Clinton was not committing an illegal action, Saddam had failed to comply with the cease-fire agreement- plus "other things"). The war (or if do prefer to use euphemisms, "the problem with Iraq") started before we began the "War against Terrorism". The doctrine of the "War on Terrorism" is that you use a pre-emptive strategy to combat terrorism.

'The Administration said that there were weapons of mass destruction that justified the attack. Where are they? I expect some answers from Bush." '
Well, we are continuing to look for these WMDs. Now, one thing I must point out, we did not attack Iraq because it was "a country" with WMD- there are lots of countries which "illegally or legally" possess WMD- either overtly or covertly. The significant of Iraq's WMD is that Iraq had agreed, as part of the cease fire agreement, to vertify that it no longer had WMD (WMD as defined in the cease-fire agreement). Now, that Iraq had WMD, was a reason given, in the context with War on Terrorism, that it was important enough "to resolve the issue"- Saddam agrees to fully cooperate with UN inspectors, or failing that, faces "severe consquences" [the possiblity of war].

"What someone on the Right hears:
"I hate blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Bush."

No wonder dialog eludes us. "

You can not actually "know" if someone hates Bush, it's only by what they say and do with their words that leads to the conclusion that they probably hate Bush.
I didn't hate Clinton. I think that sometimes he can be interesting to listen to. He did a fairly good job as President. He did make quite few mistakes, he did do things which were less than honorable. It's hard to judge, but a simple answer is, I don't think it was wrong or a error to have elected him as President.
I don't think there are many people who hate Bush, but there are larger number that "hate the idea" that he may be a successful president- it's not "personal" it's what he represent in their mind (by lack of perception or keen perception of what he represents). But "mostly" the majority of opposition has a blind perception, and is only concerned with supporting the "blue team" opposed to support the "red team".
Of course, you also have the type that hates anyone leading any country- anywhere, anytime, and/or anyone.