"The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right. I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy — not comfort to our adversaries."

George W. Bush in a January 10 speech to Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Hmm...what's worse..."irresponsible" debate over a war, or an irresponsible war?

This little quote brings up something that Iraq War cheerleaders have been remarkably vague on -- who, exactly, ARE our ADVERSARIES? Because the party line says it's not the Iraqis -- supposedly we are "liberating" them -- but then when war critics point out that we're not treating the ordinary Iraqi citizens very well, war cheerleaders come back with some variation of "well, we're at war with them." But we're not supposed to be at war WITH the Iraqi people! We're at war...I dunno, on their behalf or something. And is it really a war? I mean, it's certainly a war whenever the Bush administration wants to make claims like "we're at war! You can't criticize the president!" But supposedly we went to war to oust Saddam Hussein, who was ousted after -- what -- a couple of weeks? Ever since then, going on three years now, we have been there, bombing and being bombed, in what seems like...kind of...more of a...you know..."police action" sort of thing. Our "enemy" is a vaguely defined "insurgency" which may or may not be driven by "foreign agitators," or may be made up of disenfranchised former Iraqi military, or may be "terrorists" or who knows.

Bush makes many grand pronouncements of the "stay the course! Victory eventually!" variety, without even clearly defining what victory even is. Didn't we already have "victory" as defined by the original stated purpose of the war? Isn't Saddam Hussein on trial for war crimes? Didn't we find out there were no "weapons of mass destruction"? Isn't the proper response at that point to say "sorry," give the Iraqi people money to rebuild the stuff we destroyed, and go home?

The Republican party line accuses Democrats and war critics of wanting to "cut and run," which sounds sort of bad, but what is the alternative? Stick around bombing people until we get tired of it? And that's better somehow? More noble?

I realize I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that if our presence there, as managed by the Bush administration, were capable of establishing peace, it would already have done so. Our strategy (whatever it is) isn't working. So what are we doing there? Why are we still killing and being killed?

I don't get it. Nothing about the Iraq war has ever made any sense to me, and if Bush thinks saying that is "irresponsible" then...well, I, personally, am a member of the "American people" and I think I do know the difference between responsible and irresponsible when I see it. And I think that when you're the president, trying to shut people up just because you don't like their questions -- because you don't have any answers -- is about as irresponsible as it gets.