IMHO, both Obama and McCain are oversimplifying the complexities of Iraq. I guess that's what we've come to expect in our bipartisan political diatribe, soundbites from presidential hopefuls that don't give us an inkling of what their master plan is.

You're right, but McCain has got to start challenging Obama on his main talking points: that the war was a mistake, that his opposition to it shows good judgement, and that AQ wasn't there until the invasion.

He's got to harken back to the fact the CiC in early 2003 was two years past 9/11, he had other countries and all agencies here saying it was highly likely Saddam had WMD, Saddam was acting squirrelly and disobeying legitimate international law as decided by the UN.

Terrorists' own statements showed an intent to acquire WMD. Charles Duelfer said Saddam had retained the foundations of a WMD program that could be reactivated at any time. The UN sanctions were unraveling, and because of the payoffs under the Oil for Food Program to Security Council principles, would not be extended. Saddam could then go whole hog on his program, unimpeded.

A President is faced with the above circumstances. What does he do? Does rejecting the invasion REALLY show good judgement?

The fact that the war has been longer and more difficult than expected doesn't equate to the war being a mistake. The fact that Obama seems bothered by the difficulty of carrying out the war only underscores his naivete.

20/20 hindsight doesn't equal good Presidential judgement.