and accuse Tom of a Rewrite? There is nothing in Tom's post that constitutes a rewrite of history. Quibling over terminolgy does not justify such an accusation. Tom asked some tough questions for Bush critics and you answered none of them. That is a problem Kerry has as well. He "has a plan", but no details. It's real easy to claim to have a plan, it's hard to come up with details. The only way to evaluate the claim is to review the details.

I'm not happy with Bush's postwar performance, but I'm not sure anyone could have done better based on issues similar to those Tom raised. When Demcocrats can reply with real answers rather than diversions and name calling I'll listen. The one thing I can say for sure is that the prisoner abuse scandal did not have to happen and Bush policy was at least indirectly responsible for that. I don't think the actions were ordered from high above, but both a failure of over site and clear efforts to avoid strict adherence to the Geneva conventions contributed. Even if they don't strictly apply, they set a standard that should only be changed with very clear orders in very specific and limited cases.

I am unhappy that our intelligence system so over rated Iraq. I would prefer however, to have a president that acts on alarming intelligence rather than one that can't keep his story on Iraq straight on what he said, did, or would have done. A party that ignores that its former leader believed the same thing and claims Bush lied or cooked the data simply has no credibility with me. You've got several independant or bipartisan reports claiming the intel was faulty. To admit Clinton believed the same thing requires Democrats to explain why he didn't act. Rather inconvenient.

Regards,
Mark