I want to be absolutely clear about one thing. When it comes to the great issues of war and peace, I get up in the morning and start my day as I believe most Americans do – opposed to settling this world's disputes by use of force. I also believe that President Bush arises each day with the same hope. No one "wants" this looming war in Iraq, if it can be avoided.

Yet I am also not a robot in the service of peace. Some wars can't be avoided. I believe that there is such a thing as a "Just War." World War II was a just and necessary war. So was the American Civil War. And so was the action against Milosevic's Serb death army. In fact, there are some wars that we weren't involved with that perhaps we should have been. Forming a military coalition to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, or the civil war in the Sudan, are two examples. Perhaps if I had been a policy maker in 1915, I might have wanted to do something about the Turkish genocide against the Armenians, rather than wasting the lives of tens of thousands of troops on the beaches of Gallipoli.

I recite all of this to set the record straight regarding a recent comment I made on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" on Fox News Channel, that does bear explaining. Unfortunately, my mouth starting moving before my brain, as happens to the best of us. By the time my brain caught up, my misstatement had already been released through the airwaves. My comments, and some of the subsequent Internet chatter, do not reflect the true nature of my sentiments. For that I apologize.

So let me set the record straight. Like some Americans, including some of our elected leaders, I have serious concerns about the wisdom of invading Iraq. My ultimate loyalty, however, lies not to my political viewpoint, but with my country. My prayers for the success and well-being of our incredibly brave young men and women in uniform will be offered daily. Any suggestion that I would welcome the return of body bags carrying our soldiers for political gain is a sickening misrepresentation of my position. My colleagues and loyal viewers and listeners know this.

Our military exists to protect this country and, when necessary, to wage the just and necessary war. Yet I do believe that a diplomatic solution is still quite possible, a sentiment even Don Rumsfeld echoed last week. My ultimate hope lies with a diplomatic resolution that does not threaten American lives in the field unless it is ultimately, and unavoidably, necessary.

I do recognize Saddam for the mass murderer he is – a man who has killed tens of thousands of innocents. He seized power in a coup and maintains power by force of arms. Quite frankly – and this is a concession for an opponent of capital punishment such as myself – if I were president and the CIA told me that there was a Predator in the area with Hellfire missiles that could dispatch Saddam to his 72 virgins in paradise, I'd support the decision. But I do not want to see Americans come home in body bags unless it is unavoidable and absolutely necessary. It is here that my concerns lie, and not in playing politics with war.

I supported the effort to rid the world of the Neanderthal Taliban who were using their country to host the murderous al-Qaida. And if the inspectors can come up with harder evidence than they have so far to justify a strike on Iraq, I reserve the right to change my mind. But make no mistake about one thing – when and if U.S. boots hit the ground in Iraq, it's not a Republican war or a Democratic war. It's an American war. I will unquestionably support the soldiers in the field, under any circumstances. Any indication I gave to the contrary I retract and apologize for sincerely.