^ Actually, Catti, I won't disagree with that. (And for the record since I don't think I've said it yet, good luck to Iran and her people. I think its a great thing they're trying to accomplish and I hope it succeeds.)

I think the issue is more the false justifications he used to invade Iraq, and the speed and lack of debate it was done with, not so much the invasion itself. (Although I will say that invading a country to impose your own will and form of government has its own issues, but since we've fortunately been relatively successful in Iraq--sort of, at least in terms of the elections like you said--we can let that can of worms lie for now.) Also at issue was the way it diverted manpower and funds away from where the true Al-Quaeda threat was (an issue we are still struggling with, even more so now that our economy has turned to shit.) Kind of like the way Republicans argued that it wasn't THAT Bill Clinton had an affair that was the issue, it was that he lied about it. (I'm not trying to be snotty with that analogy, by the way; that's completely sincere.)

I never thought Bush was some sort of evil madman or anything (that would be Cheney ), and I do think his heart was in the right place most of the time. And I KNOW he genuinely believed that he had a higher calling and that be believed what he was doing was right. Spreading freedom is a noble goal. The way he went about it, though, was not ideal. What would have been ideal? I don't know. That's why I wouldn't have invaded in his place, why many of his generals told him it was a bad idea, and why no President before him did either; not even Bush Sr. who had the best opportunity to do so.