Which means that bin Laden won't be quaking in his boots any time soon because Bush is completely fubar-ed in Iraq and Iran is nucular-rattling and the Taliban in Afghanistan are kicking up and...did I mention the potential civil war in Iraq?

When Bush debated against Kerry, he commented that he would not spread American forces thin. He also commented that he would be a Peace President but I digress. Our forces are not only spread too thin but, at least in Iraq, stuck in an unnecessary rut.

So I'll say it again: BUSH BLEW AFGHANISTAN!!! He should have bin Laden LIKE HE SAID HE WOULD. He should of pursued bin Laden with the entire might of the U.S. Military and brought him to quick justice. If Pakistan posed a problem then, like Afghanistan, they could kiss their government good-bye (JUST LIKE BUSH SAID HE'D DO TO THE TALIBAN) with India's blessing.

The extra time needed to capture bin Laden would have been more for the U.N. inspectors to do their job in Iraq even though Bush might have still invaded anyway. But, at least, there may have been a chance for the Bush mis-use of information to be brought to light earlier so that the invasion could be thwarted.

Point being, before this degraded into whether we should have invaded Iraq or not, is that a quick, decisive pursuit and capture (or death) of bin Laden would have sent a truly clear message to terrorists: You do, you die!

Instead, the message was: Bush will proclaim and smirk, and then go after the oil.

Instead of 9/11 avenged, we have bin Laden running free, Al Qaeda active, Al Zarqawi active, near civil war in Iraq, Taliban kicking up in Afghanistan, nearly $500 BILLION wasted in Iraq, and a world not one bit safer.

Hussein On Trial
Who cares? Really? Probably there's not a leader of any country that couldn't be indicted for some crimes. Not that I'm a Hussein apologist or anything.

We invaded Iraq and toppled Hussein because of the threats he posed to the U.S., so why isn't he being brought to trial on those charges? If he's not guilty of those charges then we had no right to go in and topple him. If he didn't pose a direct threat to us then we shouldn't have removed.

Yes, he was a bastard to his own people but we're not rushing off to depose Castro, Kim Jong Il, or any of the many other despots who shit on their people. Why then make an exception for Hussein?

Was it oil? Was it a desire to increase the U.S. presence in the Mid-East? What is the Truth behind Bush's actions?

Because it sure wasn't WMD's. So about the Hussein trial I again say "Who cares?"