Bravo and thanks to all involved. The unsung accomplishments of the liberation of the Iraq people need to be emphasized so that the sacrifice of many will not be in vain.

Dan Patterson
Winston-Salem, NC

Just put this up on Free Republic. Hope that helps.

Thanks to Mr. Moore for anything he can do to impart this information to the public.

The posted picture of the beautiful Iraqi children is wonderful. To think that if Saddam was still in power and their parents did something he didn't like, those children could be among the skeletons unearthed in mass graves.

Anyone who could think Bush was wrong for invading Iraq after seeing pictures like this and juxtaposing them with images of mass graves of children aren't thinking rationally.

We all want success in Iraq. I am happy to see good new from there. But the question is did the Bush administration do what it should have to prevent the problems the country is now facing? The site's list of "media myths" don't seem to be real issues being debated in the media.

It is great Saddam is gone, but the administration's failure to plan for after the invasion is proving to be very costly to both Iraqis and Americans. And a few photos of cute kids won't change that fact. Here is a sobering report on the administration's failures - Post-war planning non-existent

but the administration's failure to plan for after the invasion

Yeah, criticism of the Bush Administration's post-war planning is fine - I'm very worried about the situation - but you conveniently skip over the little matter of having the guts to go in the first place, and who is more likely to finish the job now.

The mistakes that were made have not yet sunk the effort.

I'd also like to remind you:

* Low civilian casualties
* No refugee crisis
* No war between Kurdistan and Turkey
* No demolished oil fields or environmental disaster
* Little Syrian-funded uprising
* Relatively quiet Arab Street

Lay down the credit with the criticism - the worst case or even mid-case scenario was far worse. Carping from hindsight - even somewhat legitimate carping - "won't change that fact."

But it is not hindsight - there were many people warning of the exact problems we now face. I call that a failure of leadership. Yea, it could be worse, but that is hardly consolation. The problems should have been prevented.

You say it takes 'guts' to send in the troops - I say it shows stupidity to send in troops without a planning for different outcomes.

But it is not hindsight - there were many people warning of the exact problems we now face.

Many people were also warning of the exact problems that did not take place - some of them because of the speedy lethal model pushed by Rumsfeld (which was critically flawed for peacekeeping).

Franks had the opportunity to veto any plan. Deferring to the commander on the ground may turn out to be failure in some aspects, but it's not typically what's decribed as "failure of (civilian) leadership."

That being said, Rumsfeld bears responsibility, and come November, I'm sure you'll get your wish either way - he'll be gone.

So shouldn't we have waited for the inspectors to finish - then we would have known Saddam had no military power, and that heavy bombing was unnecessary? Couldn’t these problems been avoided if we were patient? The inspectors were saying nothing was there, but it was the administration that was declaring Saddam “a grave and gathering threat.”

So shouldn't we have waited for the inspectors to finish - then we would have known Saddam had no military power, and that heavy bombing was unnecessary?

What a lot of people fail to account for are logistical timing realities. The only reason inspectors were allowed back in at all was due to the military build-up. The military build-up had a finite ability to maintain striking power, and was very expensive.

Foreign countries that opposed the war in Iraq (mainly because of economic interests) were well aware of this limitation. The only potential way to avoid war at that point was to show a united, tough front that would have compelled Saddam to comply completely within a timeframe of a few months. Otherwise the military presence would have disintegrated.

Instead, the "allies" equivocated and showed disunity, and Saddam began playing games and violated Resolution 1441. Folks conveniently ignore that he denied U2 overflights, hedged on palaces, lied about missiles and failed to provide adequate documentation - even after inspections were supposedly working.

The fact is, he violated the resolution, even with a massive gun to his head. He was not a rational player.

Of course, the idea that inspections were "working" doesn't begin to addresses the "60,000" children that were dying per year from Saddam's misuse of Oil for Food funds, according to UNICEF, the Duelfer Report's assessment that his quest for WMD was eternal, Iraqi state sponsorship of terrorism, or the unsustainability of the no-fly zones that sheltered N and S Iraq from bloody retribution, among other things.