Also, I'm not sure how he came by this "sense" that average Iraqis "..want to see us bleed, to get taken down a notch.." or that "..the humiliation of America is a pleasure they can savor today." These sentiments better characterize people like Michael Moore and much of the staff at the Times.

With all due respect to Brooks' "sense" of things, actual reporting reveals that the what the majority of Iraqis most want to see is a swift end to the violent outbursts of dead-enders like Muqtada al-Sadr and the Baathists in Falluja.

At one point I supported Bush and I supported the invasion -- now I support a new administration for the simple reason that this one has shown itself to be absolutely INCOMPETENT! They bungled Afghanistan and are now bungling Iraq.

Bush is right, the consequences of a failed state will be devastating. Which is why we need new leadership.

No, Mike, we are not losing this war. We are not anywhere near losing this war.

Thank God the "Iraq=Vietnam" voices aren't as unchallenged in 2004 as they were in 1968 when they made out the militarily disastrous Tet offensive to be a defeat, not for our enemies, but for America. Defeatist spin in the news media is nothing new.

And dammit, I can't see a situation where ANY President could have avoided, if not the screwups here then other screwups equally as bad if not worse. Heck, I don't see where any President less micro-managing than Lyndon Johnson could have done ANYTHING. And that level of micromanaging does cause its own problems.

---