The debate rages over Iraq. The President says the American people won't stand for a reduction of support forthe troops. The Congress, reflecting the will of the people in the last election, has spoken their mind and determined that it is time to end the fiasco. Does the fact that both the American people and the Congress have said that enough is enough influence our President?
Four years ago, using faulty at the least, and false at the worse, data, our President, along with his top aides, said that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the United States. Iraq was responsible for the attack in New York and had the capability (or soon would) to deliver nuclear weapons to a target of their choosing.

The UN and many in the world, including some in our Congress and in our military, expressed caution. Indeed, knowledgeable people in government ascertained that the materials needed to prepare nuclear weapons were not "heading for Iraq" from other nations, as indicated by our President and his top aides. This last item didn't make it to the people until a spy was "outed" as retribution for the report. Nonetheless, with the faulty data, our Congress voted to attack, even though the "coaltion of the willing" nations did not even come close to being representative of the world body.

It was America's war. We brought England along for the ride, as well as several nations that held no real influence in global political circles.

Quickly, the American people realized that the Iraq war was not about world protection, nor was it about the war on terror (remember, almost all the suspects in 9/11 were Saudis, and were in the US on bona-fide visas and passports).

So, what was the response of our President? As many legislators began to realize the error of beginning this war, many began to come out in opposition to continuing this war. No apologies were needed, the legislators made their decision based on the information that their government gave them. On the left and right, Republicans and Democrats alike publicly asked hard questions about the initiation of the war, the need to establish a peace, the response of the civilian populations to the invading army. The answers were chillingly clear.

The military said from the outset that more troops were needed to go in, invade, and establish the peace. Institutions were sacked by gangs of roving thugs, militias sprouted immediately, loyalists to various sides coalesced in the vacuum created by the minimal force provided by the invading army. There was no strategy to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi civilians. There was only an invasion, an occupying force, and military exercises aimed at short term targets.

This President and his top aides have read the American people well. We don't want to appear to be in opposition to such a great idea - supporting our troops in a time of war. The word-smithers have crafted the language well. To be for a pullout puts our troops in harm's way; it gives comfort to our enemy, it is un-American. You are either with us or against us.

Words are so powerful in our society. Let's look at other words.

• Lying to the American people.
• Falsifying intelligence data and covering it up.
• Punishing top diplomats for finding truth that contradicts the "lie" by placing family members at risk.
• Hiding accurate funding costs in special appropriations bills so the real cost of the war is more difficult to determine.
• Providing antiquated equipment and personal safety systems to the soldiers in the field.

I submit that this President has done enough damage. Over 3,000 good men and women in the US Armed Forces and countless others have died because this President believes that he alone has the right to determine the course of this country. We live in a democracy. Or I used to think so.