Whether or not you supported the war, I suspect the current situation in Iraq displeases you. It bothers me tremendously (one thing you can count on from me is I'll speak my mind whether or not what I say is popular). This administration lacks a cohesive plan for Iraq, while our overworked and stressed service people get picked off by lingering Iraqi resistance and newly minted terrorists. Bush has taken a non-terrorist country (a terrible dictatorship, certainly, but not a terrorist state) without any proven ties to terrorism and turned it into a terrorist state. In the meantime, where is bin Laden?

I was against the war for a number of reasons and I wouldn't have voted for it as presented by the Bush administration (all of my opponents enabled Bush's war). First, Bush did not make a compelling, principles-based or truth-based case that the war was in our national interest. It's certainly easy to say after the fact that he lied or misrepresented based on the false nuclear materials evidence, but that's not the truth I'm talking about. That particular lie, however, is scary because it reveals a culture of appeasement in our intelligence agencies, the Defense Department, and/or the State Department. But that's still not why I opposed the war...

Ever since we became a world power, we've operated on the basis of measured containment and reactive defense, not offense in the name of defense. When the Soviets mobilized nukes, we contained. When China set its eyes on Taiwan, we contained. When Iraq was a troublemaker, we contained. Containment is a policy that mixes the threat of massive force with negotiation--we back up the talk with muscle. The talk is important; as long as we are talking, innocent people are not harmed. Pre-emptive military action with no clear and present danger is just wrong. “America the Bully” does not reduce terrorism, it increases it. This is just common sense, and I'm surprised my primary opponent voted for it.

To invade and occupy a country because of something they haven't done, or for something they might possess but we really don't know unless we blow the hell out of them first and then find no trace of it...well, that's just not a policy you can apply broadly with any success. And for those keeping score, we've found 0 weapons of mass destruction, which is unsettling because it means one of two things: either Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they are now missing, possibly in the hands of terrorists, OR they had no weapons of mass destruction and Bush just outright lied. Either way, Bush's war has made us less safe, less secure, and more likely to stuffer additional attacks on US soil.

Let's apply Bush's pre-emptive war policy to other countries to see if it makes any sense. China has nukes, threatens its neighbors, executes democracy advocates and forces abortions, yet we (wisely) don't preemptively invade China. So the overall policy of pre-emptive military action is flawed because it is not uniformly applicable, and is based only on the principle of overwhelming odds in our favor. Where there are not overwhelming odds, we go to plan B, whatever that is. In the case of North Korea, the State Department quietly apologizes for the "axis of evil" slur and offers food and negotiations. I expect there is a Plan C for China, because Plan B doesn't work for them either. We need to have a principles-based approach.

The other reason I was against the war--aside from my belief war is the absolute last resort and we had not reached that point--is that there was no plan to win the peace. There was no plan to police the streets of Baghdad, rebuild the country, improve the quality of life, and nurture and foster democracy. Then Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army, sending soldiers home with their weapons and no pay, creating a class of resentful, newly defeated, angry armed men. That's just stupidity. Then, the effort to rebuild the infrastructure included only companies close to the administration like Bechtel and Cheney's Halliburton, brought in through unfair no-bid contracts, and failed to anticipate the need to get American targets off the streets.

The last reason I was against the war is that the administration proved no link between Al Quaeda and Iraq, and in the meantime stopped looking for bin Laden, using an inappropriately small number of forces in the effort. Their argument is that they are all bad guys, and bad guys hang out with other bad guys, so they are all working together against us. It's a simplistic view of the world. Yes, we have our enemies (even more now after Bush's war) but that doesn't mean they are teaming up to take down America, and Bush presented no credible evidence supporting the claim. It makes me wonder what the real reason for invading Iraq is.

In the meantime, we're spending $1 billion a week in Iraq while our schools suffer, our veterans wait 6 months for health care, our economy is stalled, 50 million people go without adequate healthcare, EPA standards are being cut, and Bush is building a trillion dollar deficit with nothing to show for it. Arlen Specter is 100% complicit in this mismanagement.

You have the power to change the way things are going. Don't let them tell you anything different--they don't want you to participate and take back America. They want you to stay home and enjoy your extra $80 a month from the tax giveaway (which is eaten up by higher local and state taxes and fees). But you can take back this country and see to it that we balance our budgets and live within our means, that we don't create more problems internationally than we started with, that we invest in Education, that we fix our economy and save our jobs.

It starts and ends with you, and I will help you take back America from the insiders who have taken this country down a very bleak path. We can and must do better, but it starts with you. I look forward to working with you to take back America!