Spurred the liberation of two countries infested with terrorists and disarmed another without firing a shot. Doesn't sound dangerous to me. Oh, and to those that still insist there are no terrorists in Iraq, you have no idea what you're talking about. Who do you think we are fighting now?

Oh yeah, he's a real terror! And to think he had the gall to lock up that sweet old Saddam Hussein guy too!

Only Bush voters believe he is helping the world. Every first-world nation feels that he is a threat for over-extending his power and influence. Do the math. . .or can't you people count? (UPDATE 1/20/05 - The US has officially stopped looking for WMD's - Hey bushies, there are no weapons or terrorists there - GOT IT?) Bush is dangerous - ask the 10,000 civilians that are dead.

Killing all liberals? The Empire of Texas? Proclaiming blue states part of a different country? Invading the rest of the world and killing everybody? Got any facts to back it up or is this just another case of an active imagination with no basis in fact? Proclaiming blue states part of a different country... PROVE IT. Show me the proclomation. To my Democratic friends here on RIA... THIS is the kind of horse_____ that is bringing you down. For your own sake and credibility please distance yourself from this lunatic.

Bush is bent on turning America into a conservative empire. Killing all liberals in American, procliaming all blue states part of a different country and call his new country 'The Empire Of Texas', and then invade the world and kill everybody. He's very dangerous.

he's nice to the world, he's tried to save billions of lives

He is a menace to world peace.

Anonymous is right: anything else really shows a serious misunderstanding or myopic view of the situation. UPDATE: The South Korean Govt was angry at Bush for dismissing their, up till then successful, Sunshine Policy - a developing entente between north and south Korea. Having US troops there will not, by itself, calm fears, rather it promotes more dissention. It shouldn't be imagined that Al Qaeda have disbanded since the invasion of Iraq which had little, if NOTHING, to do with Al Qaeda at that point in time. Or that the Taliban have not been regrouping in another form. Al Qaeda, as an 'idealogical force' have people operating everywhere; they are a group not located in one place but in cells around the globe. Maybe, just maybe, a proper President with foresight, might have worked with alliances worldwide to ensure the security of the US and other countries through infiltration and exposure, routing them out so they had no place to hide. Most nations were immediately prepared to do this after 9/11. No one disagreed with action on this front, but Bush had other plans. Reportedly in diplomatic circles, it is common consensus that better relationships, interaction and effectiveness will be obtained under a Kerry leadership. They do not expect the agenda to radically alter, but that proper diplomacy and an understanding of historic cultural differences, particularly in the region, will replace the ideological goals of the current administration and achieve greater expediency.

When daccory and anonymous team up, the political discourse is downright comical. The US invaded Iraq without world approval? Like Klinton had world approval to go into Kosovo? Hello? South Koreans fear a US invasion? By the thousands of US troops presently stationed there, for their protection? Hello? Closer than ever to world peace (or being mostly united)? Hello? Look up the events of 9/11/01 in New York City and Washington, DC and tell me again how close we were to world peace. Look up the activities of Saddam Hussein, or the Taliban in Afghanistan in the late 90's, right under Clinton's nose, and tell me again how, in the aftermath of 9/11/01, we were close to world peace. Then ask yourself, would Al Gore, had he won the election in 2000, have invaded Afghanistan? Not a chance, and you know it. Wouldn't the Taliban, and al Qaeda, still be in power, and still in business committing any number of atrocities, were there a President Gore? Now tell me that John Kerry is going to lift a finger to fight terrorism. You guys who want this lame-ass liberal from Massachusetts to be responsible for the safety of Americans are incredible. Look at the track records. Look at the demise of the Taliban. Look at the outcome of the Vietnam War. Get a clue . . . please.

Compared to world leaders right now, W. Bush is not even close to being dangerous. Instead, he has taken out the real danerous ones. Saddam was a murderer and a tyrant. Bin Laden is the same. France was one of Iraq's biggest supporters. Also, in regards to losing our allies, they were the ones who had secret economic and military dealings with Iraq. They were anti-war just to protect thier own interests. If those countries can be labeled as allies then I want your definition of what a friend is.

How in the world is George W. Bush dangerous? He ousted Saddam Hussein, liberated Iraq and has ripped Al Qeada to shreds!

Dangerous to terrorists.Dangerous to hopeful liberal judge appointees.Dangerous to those who enjoy high taxes.Dangerous to people on death-row wanting a presidential pardon.

George W. Bush's unilateral foreign policy could have very serious consequences for the world. Invading Iraq without world approval alienated the United States from most of the world. South Koreans are now more afraid of an invasion by the United States than by North Korea. The U. S. doesn't want to turn into the next Roman or British Empire, ruling by force and fear. If we are trying to fight terror and terrorism, we can't afford to be hated by countries around the globe. After 9/11, people all around the world were feeling sympathy for the U. S. I mean, there were people in Iran demonstrating in favor of America! The world might have been closer than ever to world peace (or at least being mostly united). Of cource, Bush and his allies had to waste this and invade Iraq, now making the U. S. probably the most hated nation on the face of the Earth.