Hey
I always wondered why people with "liberal" values don't support this war. You seem to support civil liberties, democracy etc. but when there is a war that can have no other end but to bring such things to a people brutalized by dictators you complain. So we didn't go to war for the reasons you want, the end is the same. Congratulate yourselves, finally an endeavor that we can undertake that satisfies the wants of both the right (whatever you thing those are, I don't think they difer all that much from the left anyways) and the left to provide an end everyone likes. People are argueing over semantics.
As for the liberals accurately predicting what would happen "We are going to have a war where people will die, the enemy country is destroyed, and we will get bogged down in a rebuilding process." Awesome. Brilliant. You predicted a war that would kill people, destroy what is on the batlefield, and would cost alot to rebuild. Why didn't I realize this. The Republicans knew all of this just as much as you, and said so, the differance is they prefer to think it is leading to a good end. The Democrats simply prefer to be pesemistic becausse while we did something that is totally in line with their professed ideology, doesn't have their name on it.
The "major war" (a war that had less than three full Army divisions isn't major) was over in May. It has been six months and people are complaining about left over remnant attacks, lack of elections, and all the craters not yet repaired. What timeline are you operating on? I admit that the Republicans were optimitic to a degree, but only as much as their opponets are pessimistic. This is what all politicians and parties do, exagerate their positions. After living in America for a few years you should be able to apply the appropriate filter to political jargon. Anyone who believed either and expected normalcy in Iraq in less than a year were delusional.
-Pat