Its time to find a better President.

First of all, whenever I raise the question of what President Dean, or his lords at the United Nations, could do differently in Iraq than what Bush is doing, I get a dead silence. You've got jack shit for alternatives, and you know it. It's easy to bitch about what Bush is doing, but the best "better idea" the Democrats and the Left come up with is to somehow involve "international forces," as though these would be somehow immune to road bombs, RPGs, sniper shots, and the hatred of the Baathists. Oh, yeah, some Democrats have a third option: surrender.

What would be going better in Iraq right now if the French were involved? Would we be spending less American cash, or losing fewer American lives in favor of French ones? Sure, maybe. But would the actual goal of the mission in Iraq be any more achievable?

A number of the Democratic candidates are becoming uncomfortably aware of this, and are desperately fishing for ways to avoid saying it.

In the Bosnian/Serbian conflict not a single American life was lost in either the war or the reconstruction. The Clinton administration had secured genuine international support and participation. The American share of the costs of both the war and reconstruction was minor. And, we have Slobodan Milosevic in custody.

We lost no one in the Bosnian conflict because we were bombing the living shit out of the nation from tens of thousands of feet. If the objective had been to turn Iraq into rubble instead of surgically removing a tyranny, we wouldn't have lost many people either.

The Clinton Administration undertook this mission without formal U.N. approval, and with 16 fewer nations that the current Iraq coalition.

The bombing of Yugoslavia ended in June of 1999. Milosevic was actually captured in April of 2001. By this standard, if we catch Saddam anytime before the spring of 2005, we will be doing as well.

Anything else?