Can we please get a grip?

I've done my best to reserve judgment on President Bush after the Senate Intelligence Committee reported impairments in the intelligence he used to take the nation to war. I can bite my tongue no longer.

Tenet resigns "for personal reasons" one week, and the next, the Intelligence Committee releases a negative report (careful not to criticize Bush personally). We can set aside for a moment all of the irrefutable facts repeated in the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11”.

Hello!

I think people have to trust their instincts on this one. Sure, we want to believe we have a president that has integrity; that's a natural desire. But we also have to use the facts to come to some thoughtful judgment. After all, it's our job, as tax payers and citizens, to make judgments which have consequences on our elected officials. It is not our job to trust them, a fact our forefathers tried to spell out for us.

I know no one really wants war. There is nothing good about it, even though there can be times I believe you, as a sovereign nation, may have no choice in the matter. Such was the case when the Japanese government ordered the bombing of our bases on December 7th, 1941.

But the president used bad information to make the choice in Iraq, and that’s an established fact. There was no imminent threat to US soil. No one bombed our bases and the threat against our country was unclear at best.

I have a few thoughts...

The costs of taking preemptive measures were predictably high.

The activist world is largely venomous toward the US. The war didn't help.

To say, "The terrorists hate us", has no meaning to me. People hate what the US government did, and it's hard to find fault with that considering I also hate what the US government did.

The US government does not represent my values as a people, collectively, or as an individual.

Most of us can agree that Hussein had to be removed. The right answer, however, was to use a competent force to remove the Iraqi leader from power -- without catastrophic loss of life.

In bringing down the bully, there is no question in my mind that you have to identify Saudi-Americans or trained seem-alikes who have the ability to enter into sleeper-like cells in the region, gather usable intelligence and bring force to bear which has a high probability to terminate the dictator's ability to strike American soil, with as demonstrable minimal loss of life as possible. Failing that, if war occurs despite your best efforts, then you still have to take a similar course to squelch the threat -- with which we assisted in the creation -- on an even more monumental scale than would have otherwise been necessary.

Yes, an error in judgment was made. A bad choice resulted. Catastrophic human casualties ensued.

Both of the viable presidential candidates have to promise the American people that peace is a primary goal, and spell out the process by which they will ensure that peace. Send a clear message to the world that the US government is committed to the first goal, which is to live and let live; that we have no business interfering in affairs that do not have a direct impact on our mission as a country; and the second mission, to help in the world, where we can, through peaceful means, where ever we have reasonable assurances that catastrophic loss of life or critical human rights violations will not result.

Walk softly, but carry a big stick.

In the seventies, the DOD adopted the Air Land Battle doctrine. It is an outdated piece of work. If the last two national quagmires have taught us anything, it should be that we need to retire the battle dress uniform and the notion that ground troops can win a war. We have unmanned aircraft and amazing aerospace and airborne robotic technologies with pinpoint accuracy that should instead be utilized. We should recognize when a traditional "police action" doesn't work. Can you say Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran and Iraq?

I think that's important advice, but no more important that the step which must be taken before any other: secure the perimeters!

I'm having a difficult time swallowing the recent news reports that there are actually orders that prevent police from acting on illegal immigration, limitations placed on border patrol officers and rights being given to illegal aliens that supercede the safety of Americans on our own soil.

There are a dozen technologies that exist right now that can nearly guarantee the borders will not be penetrated. We have to develop and implement that technology beginning right now. We also have to use our law enforcement intelligence to identify people in our country that do not belong here legally.

How have we, for this long, been able to rationalize immigration without also expecting integration, assimilation into our society?

Let's get a grip!