Bush criticism does not imply lack of support of US warriors

"CRITICISM OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND OPPOSITION TO THIS INVASION" DOES NOT IMPLY "A LACK OF SUPPORT OR CONCERN FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE UNDER ARMS"

"Now that U.S. strikes against Iraq have begun, we should get rid of one canard immediately, and that's the notion that criticism of the Bush administration and opposition to this invasion imply in some sense a lack of support or concern for the men and women who are under arms. The names of too many of my friends are recorded on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial for me to tolerate that kind of nonsense.

I hope that the war goes well, that our troops prevail quickly and that casualties everywhere are kept to a minimum.

But the fact that a war may be quick does not mean that it is wise. Against the wishes of most of the world, we have plunged not just into war, but toward a peace that is potentially more problematic than the war itself.

Are Americans ready to pay the cost in lives and dollars of a long-term military occupation of Iraq? To what end?

Will an occupation of Iraq increase or decrease our security here at home?

Do most Americans understand that even as we are launching one of the most devastating air assaults in the history of warfare, private companies are lining up to reap the riches of rebuilding the very structures we're in the process of destroying?

Companies like Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Bechtel Group understand this conflict a heck of a lot better than most of the men and women who will fight and die in it, or the armchair patriots who'll be watching on CNN and cheering them on."

3.20.03 www.bushwatch.com