He is a Murder

Afghanistan was fine. Iraq was payback for Hussein dissing his daddy.

Like him or hate him, at least hes tough.  A president needs to have a back bone and can't be soft when dealing with terrorism.  Because their is gonna be another attack eventually, and you want someone whos main objective is fighting it.

Like a lot of people I agreed with going into Afghanistan to overthrow a government that gave sanctuary to the very terrorist group that carried out the attacks on 9-11-01. However, Iraq was a much different case. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who killed large numbers of Iraqis. He was not, according to American Intelligence, affiliated in any way with Al-Qaeda. His government was a secular dictatorship that at best did not get along with Al-Qaeda and at worst was openly hostile to them. People continue to confuse the "War on Terror" with what is happening in Iraq. Of course there are terrorists in Iraq, just as there are terrorists in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Indonesia etc. That does not mean we should invade those countries too. By the way, how do you defeat a means of war like terror instead of a nation state? Terror does not know it is fighting a war. I don't believe it can be done with a standard war. And you sure will not hear an answer from the chickenhawk-in-chief. I think there are kids in Iraq who watch their relatives being killed and they see a foreign military in their streets and they naturally blame on for the other. Even though our army is trying to help. That creates terrorists in the long run. Pressure needs to come from inside of Islam for their to be effective change. How you create that pressure is up for debate, but war tends to make moderate Muslims sympathize with their more radical fellow believers over someone they view as foreign and different.

Not that we should do "nothing",but Bush has gone about is "Bass-Ackwards".Terrorists should be rooted out by an elite force of spies and double agents.It would be 100% more effective,and the cost in lives and dollars would be exceptionally lower.You can not bomb,invade and occupy a country just because some terrorist is hiding there.You end up killing 1000s of civilians,losing the lives of your own Service men and women,and losing allies for your arrogance and self-righteousness.We need all the allies we can muster if we are to truly fight terrorism and not inflame it.

MY NISTAKE: I must have mis-read mag's question, I thought it read EO, what do you want. I see tonight that his question was rhetorical, What do I want? and only a lead-up to his comment. Sorry for mis-reading the post. That makes MY FINAL a non-sequitur, I somehow missed it. MY FINAL(7/25/05): What do I want? How about ridiculous comparisons to Vietnam to stop? How about journalists who balance their difficult role as informers and public opinion molders to show some balance and responsiblity? How about some intelligent dissent based on unarguable, untwistable facts instead of hatred of one man and his associated ideology? How about blame for the blood of the innocents to find its way to the terrorists? How about the costs of the war borne proportionately by those who stand to benefit from its victory? How about a UN Secretary General with a pair of testicles instead of his hand in the cookie jar?How about calling bin Laden what he is, a figurehead instead of the only terrorist in the world who matters and the only one worth pursuing? How about an acknowledgement that thousands of terrorists have descended on Iraq for a legitimate reason, at least in their minds? How about supporting the cause until you have enough information to call it a success or a failure, neither of which I, you nor anyone has today? Is that enough? There's probably more. UPDATE: What is it the peaceniks, the dissenters, the I hate George Bush and everything he does is wrong crowd want now? Surrender? Pullout from Iraq? Those who arrogantly state, we've created more terrorists by invading Iraq, somehow believe that the US should pull out, and then impeach Bush. I should think that the presence of terrorists in Iraq might indicate that they think that is an important battle for them to win. And you just want to give up? Surrender? Let them win? What on earth is the source of such weak stupidity. They've told us, by showing up and continuing to attack innocents, that they MUST win in Iraq. And your solution is to bring the troops home? Shouldn't we turn our priorities toward finding bin Laden and bringing him to justice rather than bringing democracy to Iraq? No. Do you think bin Laden is the only terrorist? That all terrorists somehow report to him? It's like saying Bill Clinton was right to ignore his chance to apprehend bin Laden because who could imagine something like 9/11 could happen? The war is on. If we pull out and turn tail and hide, do you really think the terrorist attacks will cease? Yet, that is what you suggest. To what end? ORIGINAL COMMENT 11/8/04: I'm in agreement with those who expound on the importance of the US election of 2000 as the most important election of the last 100 years. And this war is the reason. It became clear to me, in the days after 9/11/01, that Osama had run out of the great luck he had enjoyed for 8 years with Bill Clinton in the White House. Bush took the attack very personally, not a trait I ordinarily admire, unless the enemy is one who could kill ME. Knowing what I know of Bush's track record of singular focus, and of settling scores, I like having him conduct this battle. This also explains the wide berth I give him on matters of national security and war conduct, when all the news isn't good, he has given me no reason to doubt his unwavering focus on defeating this enemy who made their cause very personal to me, through their audacious attack on New York City. Friends of mine, whom I have known more than 20 years, were killed that day, so that Osama could take his first step toward annihilating the rest of us, or at least decimate our economy, and with it, our way of life. You may have forgotten that. But Osama has not. Neither has George Bush. If I'm wrong about this, I'll admit it. But right now, that is what was clear 3 years ago, it's still clear today. I understand Brits and other western Europeans not agreeing, having grown up with their peacenik indoctrination. This war didn't make them safer, at least until we accomplish more progress. But, the best defense is often a good offense. If America goes down, we'll go down fighting, not sitting, hoping the alligator is no longer hungry.

Again, Iraq and Sadaam had nothing to do with Bin Laden or Al-Queda or 9/11. It is true that Bin Laden is just one person, in the same way that Arafat was just one person, but Al-Queda and the terroristic philosophy it embodies still is dominant throughout Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc....not Iraq (although assuredly they're active there now, since Iraq has now become a symbol for them of Western-style heathenish imperialism and interference). Is it too human or a sign of weakness to say I'd still like to see Bin Laden punished for what he helped perpetrate on 9/11? Do 3,000 American lives count for nothing? At this point, Iraq has become a center for terrorism- thanks to the reckless, arrogant ineptitude of the Bush Administration- and it is true at this point that we probably can't just pull out. How do we resolve this? Can we resolve this? Certainly Bush and his cronies have no answers, although they do have much to answer for. Their hands are stained with the blood of innocents.

It is now 2005 - nearly four years after Osama Bin Laden orchestrated the devestating attacks on New York and Washington DC - and Bin Laden still roams free. While the US has avoided another attack on its soil, Bin Laden and associates have organized major attacks in Spain, the UK, Bali, Egypt, and of course Iraq. He hardly seems incapacitated by the war on terror, and if anything, the frequency of major terrorist attacks seems to be increasing, not decreasing. How have we failed to find this guy and bring him to justice? How is he still able to run a worldwide terror organization with (supposedly) all of our intelligence agencies focused him for years? Is it possible that we have been distracted from our priorities of lopping the head off of global terror because of our determination to find weapons of mass... I mean, spread liberty in Iraq? Shouldn't finding and stopping Bin Laden be prioritized over importing Democracy to Iraq? **EO, What do I want?** I want us to find the man that slaughtered 3,000+ Americans.

IN HINDSIGHT: The war on terror was flawed from the start. Instead of fighting it as a conventional or guerilla war, I think that it should have been a world wide law enforcement effort in combination with special - ops working with SOUND intelligence, which did actually exsist. Remember, we were supposed to be looking for terrorists, not toppling foreign regimes that we propped up to begin with, because they didn't fit into our world view anymore. Iraq should have been last on our list of Things to Do as it really had nothing to do with the War On Terror. Oh, and let us not forget the role that the Saudis played ... --- AND TO ADDRESS THE MODERATORS UPDATE: I couldn't begin to say what I'd do in Iraq because I'm not a military genius, but I know a stupid war when I see one. Iraqi soverignerity needs to be the goal. We could argue the point till we're red in the face, but I don't think that's been the objective thus far. We need to make it our objective, and consider a pullout real damn soon. Maybe throw up a couple of Wal - Marts as a parting gift, and refocus our energy on the real issues of everyday Americans. This war hasn't made us, or anyone in any country any safer. --- And that's all I have to say about that.

I hesitate to rate this a five primarily because I don't think any war should be given a great!. As I see it, there were two ways to handle the obvious proliferation of terrorism in the Middle East. The first being to look the other way and work through the United Nations creating polices that have little if any affect on actual terrorists. The second being to go into the troubled region, build democracies and exterminate (or at the very least attempt to) the insurgents whose greatest fear IS a democracy. The western world chose the first option and not surprisingly the consequences were made evident to us all...particularly on September 11th (though signs were evident years prior). At that point we could have continued using the same strategy that clearly failed us before because it would be far too difficult to go with option 2. Getting past the politics of it all, one must realize that terrorism had to be dealt with swifty and that it had become an even greater threat that had gone unchallenged for far too long. No one wanted to go with the second option for fear of losing an election. No one wanted to go with the second option for fear of opening up a can of worms (a pandora's box, if you will). But the time had come where something new had to be done because, to quote Edmund Burke: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Bottom line: someone had to go with option two- and it was George W. Bush, only it's now know as the Bush Doctrine.

Though some have no clue what the War On Terror is nor do they understand the full magnitude of the Bush Doctrine or how it departs from how we've dealt with terror in the past, it is still the most audacious effort of Bush's tenure as president. The Bush Doctrine aspires through various efforts militarily, diplomatically and subversively to topple or change foreign regimes that are friendly to terror. This is not- nor ever was- simply about catching Bin Laden nor was it simply about WMD's in Iraq. This is a long term strategy to change the cultures from where terrorism rises. Neo-cons are of the belief that universal to all mankind are certain principles derived from Natural Law. Inherent to Natural Law is the understanding that fecund systems of goverment must first recognize the principles of governance by consent and the universal human right of liberty. The assumption is that those nations that restrict human liberty, cut off dialogue and limit the ability for individuals to grow spiritually within a fruitful society while simultaneously infusing the doctrines of Islamofascism will nurture the seeds of terror. Democracies, it is argued, never war against one another nor do they nurture the environments necessary for terrorists to organize. Though Afghanistan was easy for everyone to understand as a target after 9-11, Iraq was less so. Iraq, within the context of this strategy posed the best next target to promote the Bush Doctrine. It was humanitarian, as Saddam was a butcher and also aggressive towards his neighbors. He also posed a threat to our security is he were to pass weapons he had developed and used in the pass to his numerous terrorist connections. Iraq is also situated between Iran and Syria in the center of the middle east. To prop up a democracy there while simultaneously promoting subversive democratic groups within Iran and gaining a military presence in the region will be a huge success. This continued effort by the Bush administration to promote democracy and the universal human right of freedom to reduce terror has been and will continue to be difficult- but it is worth the fight to rid the war of terror and secure our homeland for future generations.

We lose every war on anything not a country/people. Look at the war on drugs!

If President Bush didn't plan to go to war on Terrorism. Millions would probably be dead because of Osama. We're a free country. We need to help others. We can't just relax while terrorists are doing bad stuff. We need to do the right thing and fight terrorism.

Until BUSH came into office, this action wasn't necessary. Now it is. It's a pity that all of the poeple who voted for BUSH both times can't be sent to fight his war on terrorism; then we'd see whether or not the war is as worthy and noble a cause he and they believe it is.

One of Bush's better plans. The terrorist's attacked us. If it wasn't for bush. They would've wiped the floor with us. We had to take out Iraq's and Afghanistan's evil dictators. This was the right thing.

When Bush declared the war on terrorism, most of the developed world was in agreement...when he then said we go for Iraq, are you with us or against us...guess what? The world saw no connection. You fight the war on terror (which incidentally means literally - war against the feeling of terror) by not being afraid. But for his stance, the world would (and actually has) cooperated with routing out terrorist organisations as they crop up. We need more of this assistance, diligence and pursuit of the real culprits. This is how you try to avoid the next explosion.

I'm a major Bush supporter. We need to send a message to these peoples that terriost acts will not go unpunished like it has when the sorry for excuse Clinton was in office. If these democrates got what they wanted we would never do anything and before you know it we would be slaves to other nations.

War on TERROR? WTF! This is no better than the War on Drugs. It will never be over. It exists only as a vehicle for American fear.

Bush and his cronies say that everything is going well. Every other industrialized nation thinks otherwise. You do the math.

I really don't know how anyone could oppose the war on terrorism after a little tragedy that occurred on 9.11.01. Oh yea...if we all just hold hands and sing give piece a chance the world will change to a safe place. One poster actually thinks Bush is more of a threat than terrorist. Wow that is truely shocking to hear people actually think that. The far left has truely gone mad with rage and hatred.

For morally launching the war on terror, I believe Bush will be regarded as a great president in his finest hour.

Bush is the world's biggest jackass. He seems to be operating under the belief that there are a specific number of terrorists in the world and that once they are all dead, terrorism will cease to exist. Most of the world is far more terrified of Bush than any other terrorist organization, and with good reason; he's just as fanatical and far more dangerous. This 'war' will fail and will only serve to further destabilize the world.

The War on Terrorism may seem like a noble goal, but George W. Bush has failed in getting if off the ground. In fact, he is almost doing the terrorists' work for them. Due largely to the U. S. invasion of Iraq, bombings and attacks in Baghdad occur regularly. Also, the constant warnings from the Department of Homeland Security and how the government in general exaggerates the threat of terrorism terrorizes Americans. Terror cannot be faught with force; that is an impossible task. The world can, however, fight the root causes of terrorism--fight what causes it.

The war on terrorism is about as effective as the war on drugs. It seems to be making the problem much worse.

i relala did not support the war (post war) i just thought all around our country and world was not ready for such action. Wiht out just evidence and world wide support i dont beleive we, let me correct myself pres. bush made the right desision. After the war happened i find myself with no new thoughts, just more evidence to prove Pres. Bush wrong.

Bush has shown his commitment to this cause, and doing all he can to lead the US, and the world, to better days.

With Bush this is an achievable goal. The only issue.