In the meantime production and deployment of conventional weapons has skyrocketed, terrorist attacks worldwide have increased, Iran and North Korea are well on their way to producing nuclear weapons with impunity and the Lebanese just legitimized Hamas and Hezbollah by giving them landslide victories in regional democratic elections.

A large number of the increased 2004 terror attacks (about half) were in India and Pakistan. Not sure what this has to do with either Bush or Iraq in this context. Would there be no terrorism in Chechnya if there were no Americans in Iraq? About the only major terror attack in Europe that could be laid directly on Iraq would be the train bombing in Spain.

Also, it seems a bit odd to count attacks in Iraq during an ongoing war as an "increase in terrorism."

Iran and North Korea were pursuing nuclear weapons long before Bush was elected, never mind the invasion of Iraq. Do you think that if Gore were president, both nations would have given up that ambition? Particularly Iran, which would be faced with Saddam still in power?

Am I to assume you think Lebanon was better off occupied by Syria?

Frankly, this is getting old. Iraq or no Iraq, what would have been different if we'd just taken out Afghanistan? Would there be no Guantanamo? Would there be no Islamists pouring into Afghanistan to get a piece of America? Would you not be posting the body count here?