Republican delegate on CNN says "He had a good plan..

[coreystone]

it didn't work". I didn't pick up on the delegate's name. Of course, he was referring to the Bush plan to preemptively invade Iraq. He went on to state his belief that Bush, in so many words, would improve upon his plan.

WELL! I hope that the delegate does not feel that it is important for Bush to "run" on his record as a "war President". That delegate more than likely is in the same denial as the Republican delegates during the 1972 Republican Convention.

In the 1968 election, Republican Presidential nominee Richard M. Nixon told the American people that HE had a "plan" to resolve the "undeclared" Vietnam War". Four years later, he had still not resolved this calamity. Eventually, Nixon was forced to cut “HIS?” losses and withdraw.

Although, Vietnam was inherited from Johnson, Nixon never really had a "GOOD PLAN". George Bush initiated a "preemptive" war with the financial support from Congress to pursue such actions as a last recourse in Iraq. He not only ignored much of the intelligence information available to him that would neutralize the authority for pursuing such military activity, he did not even have a “GOOD PLAN” for doing so.

WHY, do I ask myself, should so many Americans consider that the next four years of Bush will envision a “BETTER - GOOD PLAN”. How much running on their record should we expect the Bush administration to assume responsibility for?