Wrong on what? You haven't proposed any credible alternative and expect me to think you meant something else. Bush has made hundreds of choices on Iraq that I'm sure had better alternatives. More troups for stabilization, preparation for looting, the first administrator, earlier UN involvement in setting up elections, many many appointments, expensive garbage tucks etc. Clearly based on what we know now it would have been better to put more troups in Afghanistan and stabilize it, but any rational person understands that decisions can't be based on information obtained in the future.

I firmly believe no Iraq war at all was necessary if France wasn't such a back stabbing selfish weasel of an ally. I think Saddam would have backed down if France and Russia firmly backed force if he didn't fully comply with UN resolutions on inspections. I think Russia probably would not have stood firm against force either if France didn't give them cover.

I don't believe Bush's weakness in diplomacy mattered. Clinton was far better yet it didn't stop France and Russia undermining UN sanctions during Clinton's 8 years in office. France, Russia, and Germany were primarily concerned with protecting their financial interests just as they were during Clinton's terms.

I believe Bush's firm stance against terrorism and preimptive doctrine is correct. I don't believe he has handled all the details superbly. His failures have been numerous enough that any candidate with a similar firm stance would be a viable alternative. The biggest issue is the prison scandal which is his fault at least indirectly for explicitly stating Geneva conventions don't apply yet not setting strict standards as an alternative.

I also think anyone claiming Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism (terrorism in general not 911 in particular) is clueless. His palistinian terrorist rewards are just inconvenient facts to be ignored. His brutality towards Kuwait and his own people somehow indicate to some people that he was just some poor misunderstood leader rather than a dangerous leader capable of doing anything he thought was in his interest.

Regards,
Mark