is bush the worst or the best man for the job? explain?

at this point in time i would say he is definitely the right person for the job! let me state for the record that i am a democrat and frankly i am appalled at the tatics of my party. bush said from the beginning of our war on terror that this different type of war would be long, costly and ugly. i fail to see where he was not correct.

yeah lets listen to my party that wants to cut and run, that will send a real message to the terrorists... america has no stomach for the job and can simply be waited out.

come on ...bin laden thought he could attack us with impunity due to our reactions to the bombings of our marines in lebanon, the uss cole, the embassy bombings etc. he further believed that we could easily be defeated because in his own words, they had defeated the world's strongest military when they drove the soviets out of afghanistan. well he was wrong then and he and his kind are wrong now.it would be a shame for our military to win all the battles and have our politics cost them the war because we don't like body counts. all i can say is that if this same point of view ruled the day in world war 2 we would all be speaking german or japanese. how quickly we forget that on 9-11 we were attacked without provocation and had over 3,000 fellow american citizens killed. more than in the attack at pearl harbor!!!!

did saddam attack us on 9-11? of course not, but once the war on terror started iraq was a likely choice to be the next area of conflict. look at the facts...iraq continually fired on us and coalition planes enforcing the no fly zones agreed upon as a condition of saddam's surrender after us and coalition forces drove him from kuwaite under un security council mandates. he used chemical weapons on the kurds,he kicked out the un weapons inspectors and impede them from competing their u n mandated mission of locating and destroying weapons of mass destruction. he further tried to manipulate the oil for food program so that he could continue the ressurection of his military.in spite of all those clear violations and over a decade of more resolutions and extended timetables and deadlines saddam would not comply with u n mandates. so it is obvious to me that more mandates and deadlines were useless and if he was not producing wmds why did he not cooperate with weapons inspectors?

when bush went to the u n to outline a plan, the u n would not even enforce its own mandates... big surprise there huh? our so called allies ..particularly those in europe had no backbone or taste for this dirty war, yet even today are demanding their right to participate in the rebuilding of iraq so they can make profits at the expense of american blood! they were quite willing to leave the dictator in power on the backs of his people so they could make a buck. really, i must ask... am i the only democrat that sees this?

oh and as an interesting side bar saddam plotted to assasinate the first pres. bush..that in it self was justification to remove saddam from power...i dont care what your political party is, he wanted to assasinate the president of the u s a !

regarding legal rights of terrorists and enemy combatants..it really is simple according to geneva convention rules, if you want the protection of geneva rules you must abide by them..if you do not,you forfeit your right to claim protection under them. for example you must be a uniformed combat soldier representing a country or government, you may not hide among or attack civillians.etc. i say the terrorists fail on those counts alone. further more in the early stages og gulf war 2, they executed american pows another clear violation of geneva rules.

so to think that bush is somehow wrong for spying on good americans here at home who are e mailing or making phone calls to suspected terrorists abroad is so rediculous that it defies common sense. add to that the so called mistreatment of terrorist detainees, where were all the activists screaming about the unfair treatment of kidnap victims who were tortured and beheaded? the silence was deafening.yet the detractors want these terrorists treated as criminals, as american citizens protected by all the rights and rules of our nation and its courts...please i beg you, wake up!!! these are not criminals,nor should they be treated as such. they are terrorists that attack and kill unarmed civillians in order to accomplish a political/religous agenda! the only way to deal with them is to kill them!

i know many find that thought distasteful, repugnant, against all that we stand for, but it is a new world post 9-11, it is a cruel ugly world where we are facing enemies that want to kill us simply for who we are. they want to attack and then blend inamong civillians where they feel they are beyond the reach of civillized nations. to tell you the truth, until bush came along they were right. for decades europe has harbored, tolerated and treated terrorists like criminals..common criminals, they have nothing to show for their efforts.see the unrest in europe particularly in france, germany and other places.

no bush has got it right, long and costly and dirty.....i only pray as an american that our next president, regardless from which party gets it right as well.

mel- student of criminal justice

certificate in anti terrorism and national security management

security officer

bodyguard

private investigator