And yet, what were our other choices? Al "Stop listening to rock music and hug the planet" Gore? Al "Have a smoke and a vote on me" Gore? Al "All toxins expelled into the environment are evil except for cigarette smoke" Gore? Al "All votes should be counted except for the ones I don't want counted" Gore? Al "Remember me via PowerPoint" Gore? Would he really have taken our country in a better direction? Don't kneejerk think about he and him. Blend in post-911 hysteria, economy in the red, skyrocketing unemployment, sinking 401k accounts, etc.

And then there is JOhn KErry. John F'n Kerry. John "Do you know who I AM?" Kerry. John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry. John "Pass the world test" Kerry. John "Or else you get stuck in Iraq" Kerry. John "I'm fascinated by Hip Hop" Kerry. Most all veterans despise him. I consider myself in good comapny.

I could dive in with some W quotes for sake of equality, but there's plenty enough W bashing on this site to make up for the difference.

Bottom line, I'd rather side with a president that wanted to protect our asses (or made it seem like it) than someone that would hand our asses over to other countries. Such are the last three choices offered by the Democrats. I'm thankful we let them have their way with the country only once.

Thanks for your reply. Hopefully you're still around, because I know I don't understand something here and hope you'll explain further...

JOhn KErry certainly would have handed our asses over to other countries. That whole 'world test' diatribe. Plus, his voting record against missle defense and bunker-busters, coupled with his Vietnam track record (and I don't mean the purple hearts). This man fully intended to hand our asses over to other countries. What must I admit I was wrong about, speculatively? After all, there is no history to point to, given how he didn't hold the office.

Gore, on the other hand, perhaps may not have handed our asses over as eagerly as JOhn KErry and Clinton. Yet there are those various speeches he has delivered, mostly in Arab nations, where he explained how America is on the wrong path (at best) and the cause for all troubles abroad (at most).

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I'm not 'willing to mature' as you claim, but I don't see how those folks wouldn't have handed our asses over as their histories suggest, nor do I see how Bush isn't protecting our asses (or making it seem like it, as I wrote) to other countries. Please do take the time to explain (and I mean this sincerely).

One can only speculate. And yet, since we're speculating, contrast this with my opinion that he's protecting our asses (or making it appear to be) vs. those other folks handing our asses over to them. Doesn't it stand to reason that the US is, as you wrote, "damaged" considering how protecting our asses (or making it appear to be) tends to misalign US interests with those of other countries? I.E. if we're looking out for ourselves, then we aren't looking out for them, so they can't like that very much.

I'm constantly hearing how Bush is shredding the Constitution. I tend to be suaded with some arguments. However, I can't help but compare it to my home state, the bluest of the blue, liberal Massachusetts. We voted on referendum in 2000 to lower income tax from 5.35% to 5%. Roughly, this means $150 per year per $50k you make. It's 2007 and the referendum we voted for has yet to be enacted.

In MA, over 170,000 citizens signed a petition to get a referendum question on the ballot about homosexual "marriages". To spare you the details, we aren't going to get our referendum.

Combine these with our last 4 house speakers being beyond corrupt, the Big Dig that you in other states are helping to fund, the continued existence of turnpike tolls that have paid for the turnpike since 1982, and Ted Kennedy having the balls to not only buy a Portuguese "water houd" but to also name him "splash" and you can see how the bluest of the blue doesn't get much of anything right, let alone at all.

WHY SHOULDN'T we reap some financial benefit from our efforts?

Briefly, although there was no WMD programs in-process, the infrastructure was in place for a quick start-up. Plus, Saddam wasn't in the know about everything going on in his country. Couple these with Iraq's public support for terrorism and you have a formula for disaster.

I agree with you that in the short-term, the Iraq invasion does not protect the US. I believe that long-term is another story, however. If nothing else, the longer we stay over there, the more anti-US savages we are killing.

As for the cost in blood and treasure, what if preventing 9-11 would have cost us $400bil? Would it have been worth it? Do you know for certain that our presence in Iraq has not proactively prevented a possible future event from already having happened? Granted, I don't know that it has prevented anything either, but all's fair when we speculate.

Hey, 9/11 probably could have been prevented with the intel that we did have. But again, Democracy prides itself on being beuracratic and slow-moving. If they were serious on preventing further attacks, they would have finished the job in Afghanistan (get the guy who WAS responsible for 9/11) and dumped money into improving our port security and nuclear reactor sites, etc. But that's my most humble opinion.

And there will never be an end to the Iraqi situation now. Forcing democracy on a nation that is not ready for it or doesn't want it or has multiple ethnic groups that hate each other...not gonna happen.