The biggest critcisms against the Bush adminstration these days has been their incompetence in handeling the Iraq War. Here is someone who offers a different perspective on the whole thing. Moneyshot: Set aside, for the moment, the favorable historical context of the achievements in Iraq thus far: Toppled Saddam's government in less than two weeks. Avoided doomsday scenarios of environmental and humanitarian disasters. Established provisional government. Held the most open, free and fair elections in decades. Established interim government. Reached deal on Constitution. Tomorrow a referendum on the charter and two months later, full elections. All of this accomplished in just over two and a half years with less than 2,000 U.S. combat deaths. The war in Iraq is not without problems, but despite the relentlessly negative press coverage pumped out to the public every day, from a historical perspective we've made astonishing progress. Again, setting all that aside, ask Democrats who charge the Bush administration with incompetence what they'd do differently in Iraq under the same circumstances and you get silence and a blank stare. Can they identify a single thing we should be doing in Iraq that we aren't? Is there something we should try that we haven't? John Kerry is a perfect example. Last year, after spending months formulating an Iraq policy for his general election campaign, Kerry and his advisors finally emerged with a five-point plan that didn't contain a single substantive difference from the Bush administration's policy. The best Kerry could do was to offer that he'd "do a better job persuading the international community to share the burden in Iraq." That's more platitude than policy, and it was obviously far from convincing. Interesting. Read the whole thing.