Well, discarding the "would not haves," which is more delightful hindsight, I'm not seeing anything specific. I have read countless statements from many people that basically boil down to "Another president would have done it better," and leave it at that. When details come into it, things fall pretty flat.

A competent administration would have adequately planned for such an insurgency.

How? More troops? There weren't any more troops. Keep the Iraq Army intact? Iraqis look at people like they're nuts when that suggestion comes up. Shoot the looters? Flatten the insurgent cities? I mean REALLY flatten? What's the Secret Plan, Nixon? I have seen a lot of reference to a mythical State Department plan, but the details don't seem to hang together when brought into the light.

A competent administration would now level with the American people about the seriousness of the situation there now.

I'm sorry. This is a secret? Or maybe we're just talking about adopting the Democratic Party's constant cry of "the insurgency is going to win, and we're all going to die!" That would really help things.

A competent administration would have figured out how to build a real international coalition to share the burden.

Again and again with this. Please tell me what President Kerry would have offered France to have them put troops in Iraq. I'd love to know. All the nations willing to help are already helping. The rest wouldn't help if FDR asked them in.

A competent administration would have a bonafide plan for relinquishing U.S. military involvement to a true international force of peacekeepers.

"Relinquishing?" Oh, really? And when the U.S., Britain, Australia, and the rest leave, who's left? Who else has the tanks, the forces, the helicopters, and the rest? Never mind the money? And when somebody else's troops are getting blown up, is that okay then? U.N. worshipers have to get one thing straight: There IS nobody else except the U.S. capable of marshalling heavy military force.

It's so easy to just skim along the surface of thought. Liberals spend a LOT of time there. All you have to write down is "international force of peacekeepers," and the image is complete in your mind. Nasty thoughts like "which nations?" don't even have to enter into it, never mind ideas like "what nations aren't involved now that would make the current coalition 'international' by my own odd definition of the word?"

What exactly does "international" mean in your own personal lexicon?

More of the same. Kerry would be muddling through right now just like anyone else, assuming he didn't just bail out.