It makes me mad how people are jumping back on the war bandwagon, I have talked to people who were against the war, but now are glad that we went into Iraq because we got Saddam. Must I remind them that we got the guy that didn't do anything to America, and we totally forgot about Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history. Not to mention that the only reason we attacked Iraq in the first place was 1) name recognition (do you really think the average American could name the leader of North Korea?) and 2) protecting our oil interests. Bush doesn't care about the freedom or Iraqis any more than any other American. If this weren't true, then he would be trying to liberate every other country in this world with evil dictators, and we all know that that won't happen anytime soon. Which brings us back to the aforementioned two reasons we attacked in the first place. My friend Barb said to me, "Well, if Howard Dean was president, Saddam would still be in power." Maybe. Remember that Kerry was attacking Dean for supposedly flip-flopping on the war issue? He said on a talk show last year that he would go into Iraq, WITH A U.N. RESOLUTION, but not as a pre-emptive strike. And if he were still in power, how would that be any different than our policy for the past 30 years? I mean, when we AREN'T giving Saddam weapons and $$ to fight Iran. I told her this and her response was that Iran was worse than Iraq at that point in time. Whether or not that is true, it shouldn't matter because supporting terrorism is SUPPORTING TERRORISM. This isn't an issue of the lesser of two evils. Terrorism is the ultimate evil, and supporting the "less evil" terrorist over the "more evil" terrorist isn't exactly the best policy. We shouldn't be supporting terrorists in the first place. And if Howard Dean were president during 9/11, who is really to say what he would and would not do? We have no idea if that is really the case, because Dean wasn't in charge of the country on 9/11.