The picture of George Bush is nice. It all depends upon how susceptible you are to amateurish propaganda and emotion tugging.

"...died needlessly for a poorly planned and unnecessary war</blockquote">

No one died needlessly. Saddam Hussein has been captured Iraq is on the way to become a nation with representative government instead of a dictatorship. This is a very honorable cause, more honorable than most wars and conflicts in human history.

The war was very well planned. The Generals who dislike Rumsfeld would have loved to roll into Iraq with upwards of 375,000 troops, of which more than several thousand would have died in the first months, just due to accidents, friendly fire incidents, and the logistics of moving that many people around a battlefield with loaded weaponry. This would not have made Iraq any safer after the quick victory was won. Suicide bombers don't care whether 100 troops are stationed outside a building or 1000. The increased number would just lead to greater deaths.

I find it stunning that folks can't seem to comprehend the suicide attacks are not stoppable by increased troops. Indeed, increased troops would tend to subjugate the Iraqis more and make them feel less secure, while not dissuading fanatics a bit and making their bombs and rocket propelled grenades secure more victims.

The retired generals and ambassadors are throwbacks whose statement is just an anti-Bush political whine with reference to the, now abandoned, failed policy of appeasement. Most are Clinton and Carter era democrats seeking to boost Kerry for a position in his administration or a new cushy ambassador job such as Clinton passed out to many political supporters.

It means less than nothing unless you already believe in the 'cower and appease' approach to diplomacy perfected during the Carter and Clinton administrations. It's the failed diplomacy of Madeline Albright kissing the feet of a North Korean dictator, handing him a bribe while begging him not to build nukes.

My shorts are not red, white and blue, and if they were it certainly wouldn't be something to be embarassed about. I think one's view of Bush is determined by how broad a view one has of the various agenda's in the world and what others wish for Americans and the US. When one sees this in its totality one sees that we have ignored our enemies too long and allowed our 'allies' to deal with our enemies against our own best interests. For those of us who feel that way - Bush is just what the doctor ordered, mis-speak, religious zeal and all.

America has always been hated by other nations; too rich, too happy, too powerful, etcetera. At the same time all nations' peoples come flooding to the US because they realize it is the best nation on earth. When one sees any diplomat hold a straight face and say America is now hated because of Bush - an educated traveler has to stifle a loud guffaw, because America has been hated LONG before either Bush became President.

If one wants to believe that the world would be better off with John Kerry at the helm of the US - one has to be living without any knowledge of history or John Kerry.

SDAI-Tech1