The nightmare has already happened to our troops: they were sent into a war by people who (your article from London to the contrary, about Americans going to war with reluctance) sent them there gleefully, yet without any post-war planning whatsover. Into a war the rationale for which changed daily. Weep for their heroism while knowing nothing themselves about war. Haditha is the least of it. War ruins people -- maybe not all of them. But send young people into kill-or-be-killed situations and, even worse, to do so without adequate forces or equipment for protection, for reasons that are nebulous at best.... THAT is what is damaging to troops. No matter what the facts are about Haditha, those that were there have had their lives essentially ended. To see such things and to be put in a position to do such things wounds a person deeply. I know. I served in Vietnam.

I'm no pacifist. As long as there are humans on the planet (especially ones who think they are being directed by God to do whatever it is they do) there will be war, and some will be worth fighting. But people -- especially the ones who decide to send others to do their fighting -- ought to be aware of what war really is. No one who made the Iraq decision has a clue. So this idea that Democrats hate the troops makes my blood boil. Democrats -- the ones I know -- think that when we make war we ought to do it with the troops in mind. And care for them when they come home. You crocodile teared Bush defenders ought to really really think about that. Some wars have saved us all. This war. THIS WAR is ruining everything. And it didn't have to be so. Troop lovers vs troop haters. I call bullshit. Over and over and over. Sit in front of your laptops and tap away. Your rhetoric is so perverse as to be laughable, if it weren't so tragic and dangerous for us all. Especially our troops.

PS: are there democrats and/or members of the press (and bloggers) who say things that are over the top? Yes. Do they compare to Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh (or you) in their spewing of vitriol? Not often. Does it help anyone or anything to pretend it's only democrats? Should we be addressing problems together in some way? Yeah, like that'll happen, when you represent our future.

If Al Gore had carried his "home state" in 2000, how would President Gore have tried to disrupt the Islamist terror network after 9/11? Would he have had the resolve to go after sponsor states like Iraq, Syrian, Iran, Afghanistan,...? Al Qaida isn't the only player.

If the 1993 WTC attack had been successful under President Clinton, there could have been 30,000 dead instead of 3,000. How would he have handled it?

Of course President Bush has made mistakes, but press on with resolve we must. If was our lack of resolve in previous conflicts since WWII (including the Reagan-era Beirut bombing where one of my grade-school best friends died).

Bush's failure to seal our southern border not-withstanding, our overseas efforts (flawed as they are) are the "ounce of prevention" stage to try to prevent future attacks. This war has been going on for 30 years by some accounts, but we looked the other way until 9/11.

How can you be diplomatic with a mindset that wants to kill you and all that you stand for? Islamism is the sort of tyranny that a real "Classical Liberal" would detest.

I think we have been too nice in some respects in our prosecution of this war. And we need to have been more tough on Saudi Arabia and their backdoor support of Islamist terror.

How would you try to prevent future 9/11s? How do you get the dithering cowards of Europe to see that they have a stake in this? The Islamist culture doesn't value restraint nor patience.

Oops. Made a cut-and-paste error along with a typo or two.

Should have read: "It was a lack of resolve in previous conflicts since WWII (including the Reagan-era Beirut bombing where one of my grade-school best friends died), that contributed to Al Qaida believing that we would not respond."

Why is it that opposing leftist positions is somehow always "hate speech" and "vitriol?"