I just don't like the way Bush has handled it. So I see bad handeling as something worth having humor about (as the way he handled it didn't cost lives; the war itself, which I still support, is what cost lives).

Jeff, you always bring some really valid, logical debates to the table around here, and I really respect the fact that you stick up for what you believe in, whether it be on a political matter, a religous matter, or whatever else we might be talking about. But this seems to be a blatant example of splitting hairs and using a technicality to defend your position. To separate the war itself from "the way Bush handled it" is silly, because Bush is the one who made the war happen. The two concepts are inseparable.

Furthermore, the statement "the way he handled it didn't cost lives" is ludicrous! We're talking about the Commander In Chief here. The leader of our military. While he obviously isn't drawing out battlefield maps, he is absolutely the one single person on the planet responsible for every action or reaction that comes from the war he brought to Iraq. I think he might have even said that at some point or another. It's a simple fact of our government that the President gets all the credit for the good decisions, and all the blame for the decisions that are questioned. So I really think it's disingenuous to somehow say that Bush was responsible for the decision to go to war, but anything that happened after that was just the result of some intangible idea like "the fog of war" or whatever it is you mean by "the war itself, which I still support, is what cost lives."

Your argument sounds, to me, equivalent to saying a tank commander is responsible for firing the tank's guns, but the tank rounds are really what kill people, so if he kills an innocent civilian, he's not responsible. Bush "pushed the button" on this war, and he's not suddenly out of the picture now that the war is on. It's his job (along with his very war-tested cabinet) to know all of the scenarios going into a war, and be willing to accept them. To now make light of it while GI's are still coming home dead is inconscionable.

I'm sorry if I'm ratcheting up the volume on this debate a little, but your argument is a perfect example of Jim's "wardrobe malfunction" theory... "Oh, I started the war, yes, give us credit for liberating Iraq... But, oh, no, the guns and the bombs and the dead people and all that nonsense, well, that's just what happens with war, that's not my fault at all." If that's not what you're saying when you try to separate the war and "the handling of the war," could you please elaborate?