[Moneyguy1]

Interesting comparison. I do not completely agree, but I do think had the prez been a bit more "honest and open" re: his agenda, there would most likely be less "opposition" to his actions and plans. His inability to clearly define the mission has been his greatest shortcoming.

Unilaterally invading a sovereign country is an iffy proposition and makes the invader look like AH looked re: Poland and the other European nations, claiming to liberate the citizenry. The rationale for the initial invasion has morphed over the last three years, so where "lying" may be a strong term "misled" may be applicable, and could even be interpretated as he himself was misled. The "You cannot win the war" is an incomplete statement. The war is unwinnable from a simply military standpoint, in my opinion. It will take a lot of diplomacy which seems to be in short supply when one will not interact face-to-face with one's "enemy". Once again, in my opinion, a combination of strength and negotiation will work far better than strength alone. Teddy Roosevelt had it right. "Speak softly but carry a big stick".

I do not like the comparison of those against current operations with Ms. Rose. This is still a free country and we still, at least for now, have the right to voice opposing views. Beware of losing this precious freedom. There are those here that unwittingly advocate totalitarionism and would be happy with a dictator, but only if that dictator shared their political and fiscal philosophy. Careful what you ask for.

Finally, whether it be Democrats or Republicans, when one party has both the White House and the Congress, oversight goes out the window and balance is lost. I love it when there is a split between the two.