You claim he has created more terrorists than he's destroyed yet we have had less major attacks on US targets outside of Iraq. It is quite clear the attacks in Iraq are designed to stop Iraq from becoming a Democracy. Apparently you agree with those people. If we weren't trying to form a democracy these guys wouldn't be so upset and there would be less of them. Since number of terrorists alone is your concern Iraqi democracy must be bad in your eyes.

I doubt this is a true conclusion, but it is the only way your warped logic would be consistant. There is no overnight solution to terror Chris. Clinton avoided the issue to avoid the possible negative consequences like we are seeing, but the problem got worse any way. Appeasement and ignoring the problem of terrorism doesn't work. Fighting stirs up trouble, but there are long term goals at stake which have worked out in other countries such as Japan and Germany in the past. Japan had no history of democracy either and it certainly wasn't a major part of German history either.

You are either ignorant or deliberately lying to claim Bush's motives have changed. Every motive he lists now was enumerated before the war. Changing the emphasis does not mean the reasons were made up after the fact. IMO these other reasons were always presented as reasons sufficient within themselves for removing Saddam, although the wmd was the primary reason for urgency. As I noted with Don elsewhere the wmd isssue is also not dismissable even now.

And please drop the BS about Bush not doing this or that when Clinton did squat. You have failed to answer my question on the difference between Clinton's and Kerry's policies so you have no basis for claiming Kerry will do more than the didly Clinton did. He even wants to return to the same Clinton policy that already failed in N. Korea. What an obvious idiot.

Regards,
Mark