Is that all who are opposed to Bush are against the war on terror. I realize the threat of islamic fanaticism and have generally supprted military measures against these lunatics. There is no denying however that the war in Iraq was severely mishandled and blame lands squarely on Bush and Rumsfeld. Were it handled correctly, i.e., with more mp's on the ground from day one, the situation there would be far better. Now it is almost a lost cause. Furthermore, this guy has done nothing to free us from dependence on islamic oil, which is perhaps the biggest national security issue we have.

My main opposition to Bush is his unconsionable ignoring of global warming and the potential disaster it presents to humanity. Al Gore asks a very salient question in "An incovnenient Truth": Can a great nation focus on more than one important issue at a time? Yes the war on terror is important. Saving the planet for global warming is even more so. You'll probably reteat to your standard "Clinton didn't do much either" thread. First the evidence wasn't as great then. Second, Clinton wasn't Al Gore and yes he should have done way more anyway. Is there anyoen who thinks as president Gore wouldn't push for a real change in America's energy sources? He would free us from islamic oil rather than let his oil buddies pocket billions at the expense of not only Americans but the future of the human race's survival!