Prior to Bush's election, this was the situation (all of the following are known facts):

Al Qaeda was planning and preparing to execute attacks on New York City and Washington D.C.

Scientists in Pakistan, probably the knowledge, if not the encouragement of their government, were running a nuclear weapons ring across the Middle East. Under the nose of the U.N.

Syria had chemical WMD

Libya had chemical WMD, and was working on nukes.

North Korea was actively violating the Clinton agreement and developing nuclear weapons

Iran was developing nuclear weapons, also under the nose of the United Nations.

Saddam was funneling oil money away from his people to himself, Europe and Russia.

Again, all of these things have been proven. At some point, the shit would have hit the fan, probably starting with a crater either in Tel Aviv (most likely) or maybe even somewhere in America.

This is the "Big Picture" nobody wants to talk about.

Maybe invading Iraq was not the best way to change this unstable situation. But at some point, military action somewhere in this venue would become almost inevitable. Maybe Syria. Maybe Iran. Maybe North Korea. Then it would be the same complaints, different country.

Maybe Bush could have kicked the ball down the road, like Clinton. Or for that matter, Bush Sr.

Maybe things would have been different under Al Gore. Certainly he would not have invaded Iraq, and while he would have attacked Afghanistan for 9/11, I would lay even odds he would have limited the attacks to air strikes at terror camps and locations, and not actually invaded that nation. What this would have accomplished, or not accomplished, nobody knows. Maybe Al could have kicked the ball down the road too.

You are welcome to sit down and rationally think of a "better plan." The hard fact nobody wants to swallow is that, at this point, there really isn't a "better plan." Kerry sure as hell doesn't have one, unless it's bailing out.

Do you think putting another hundred thousand troops in Iraq, from any nation at all, will reduce the number of roadside bombs, sniper shots, mortar attacks, or anything else? Will those who hate us in Iraq hate us less if there are more Americans there? Or Frenchmen? Will the money required be less? Will France cough up billions for Iraq simply because they like Kerry better than Bush?

Will there be fewer American casualties? Why or why not?

Exactly what will those hundred thousand troops be doing? Why, killing a lot more Iraqis than the current number can. What else would they be doing? What would be the actual results of twice the number of Marines patrolling Fallujah then what they have now? Fewer civilian casualties? Fewer Marines targeted? Less destruction of the city?

If your sole objective is reducing American casualties, let's cut the crap and bring in the bombers.

The only advantage to more troops is being able to marshall more overwhelming deadly force. Maybe this is a good idea, maybe not. I don't think it's going to win a lot of hearts and minds.

Has anyone actually gone through all this step by step?

Start with "we put another hundred thousand troops in Iraq. Then we..."

Go from there. Others are welcome to jump in on this.