I keep hearing how history will show... history will show... history will show. Funny thing is, I heard that about Reagan. Even more funny, is that history has shown Reagan as the leader that defied communism, and brought the Soviet Union down.

How stupid you must be, to think that Bush polarized the country. Bill Clinton won the 1994 election with 43% of the popular vote. That means that 57% of the people voted against him, yet we were somehow "unified"? In 1998, Bill Clinton won the election with 49% of the popular vote. That means that 51% of the people voted against him, yet we were "unified"? The country has been "polarized" for many years, and Bush has done nothing more to increase that polarization. You cannot show one power that he has "invoked, but doesn't have", and I welcome your attempts to do so. Bush has not abused our civil liberties, and I welcome your attempts to prove otherwise. Bush has not now, nor has he ever, trashed our Bill of Rights -- and you cannot name one Amendment that he has violated, or somehow denied an American citizen, not charged with terrorism against the United States (which, by the way, falls under the direction of war prosecution, not legal).

"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Worked great in Cuba!

Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"

<sigh>

It never ceases to amaze me, that someone with such obvious hatred toward this country, can so easily make so many mistakes.

Were the lives lost in Iraq, worth it? Yes -- speaking as someone who has been there, and who has known people lost, yes -- it was worth it. And the reasons are multiple. The biggest reason of all, is that with the battlefield of terrorism being over there, it's not being fought here. You may claim that we should be in Afghanistan fighting, but the problem is -- you think the War on Terror equates to the War on Al Qaeda, or even the War on bin Laden. It doesn't -- it's the War on Terror for a reason, and that reason is there is more then one terrorist organization out there, and Hussein also had one -- it was called the Baathist Party. They terrorized their entire countryside.

You think, as is obvious by your posting, that the only WMD to ever worry about, is a nuclear weapon. This is just not true. One of the WMDs that Hussein had available to him, is VX nerve gas -- a colorless, odorless liquid chemical agent, that when vaporized, kills thousands with the tiniest amount. One very possible scenario to imagine, is someone coming to Chicago, from Canada with a 2-liter 7-Up bottle (or 2) filled with VX. This same person, since he does not have to go through customs, simply offloads his bottles, which are in his backpack, and goes to the top of the Sears Tower with a nice C4 vest attacked to himself. Doing this in the middle of winter, when no one would notice a person in an overcoat is a particularly nice touch... Anyhow, upon arriving at the top of the tower, this person detonates his bomb, and sprays 4 liters of VX into the air of Chicago. There aren't enough Mark IV kits in this country to counteract the damage that would cause in a short amount of time. Hundreds of thousands, literally, of Chicago people, would be dead. And get this: unlike radioactive substances, you cannot simply walk around the marina with a geiger counter to find some trace. It's very easy to hide the trace of VX, and it's a very easy substance to transfer from place to place.

You're wrong on the issue of George HW Bush also. Bush wanted to be rid of Saddam Hussein at the end of the Persian Gulf War. However, our allies in the Middle East, known as the Arab League, made it very specifically known -- their support was limited to only so much as Kuwait was freed. The instance that we looked like we would invade Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, they would withdraw their support, and consider it an act of war against them.

"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"