*** I take it then, Dale, that you would agree that providing health care to the uninsured (so they can have regular checkups as opposed to emergency room visits) qualifies as "an ounce of prevention"? It's far more cost effective to catch an illness early rather than deal with it later. Similarly, isn't it better to require higher fuel efficiency standards and thus conserve oil, and reduce pollution to the environment (and all of the health woes that will follow). And of course there is the ballooning national debt that the Republicans are largely responsible for. This fiscal mismanagement can only cause greater misery down the road. These examples (and many more that I could cite), demonstrate that the Bushies don't live by your credo. So why do you stick by them so tightly? ***

I agree with you completely, Peter. But I do not defend them on everything. I think all I've defended was his decision to remove Saddam. In addition to the points in your post I also believe he's done a piss poor job securing our borders. This illustrates the biggest difference between me and those of you who hate the man. I think he has made some good decisions and I believe he's made some bad decisions. Actually I think he's made more bad than good. There are a few here who believes he's done nothing good; never has, never will. As much as I dispise Clinton, the man did some good. I'll give credit where credit is due. Neither man is evil personified, but you wouldn't know it by reading this board. NOTHING is that absolute.

*** My response, Dale, is that we did not "do nothing". Saddam was thoroughly contained, a threat to no one but his fellow citizens. We had no-fly zones in place, vigorous inspections, and economic sanctions (to name a few). Would you agree that we were not doing "nothing"? Would you agree that there exists a possibility that Iraq might dissolve into a civil war and that that would be a far greater problem than what we faced prior to the war? ***

We were not doing "nothing", but what we were doing wasn't working at all and was only hurting the people of Iraq, not Saddam or his military. As far as a civil war; it is possible. But then again, anything's possible. Democracy is also a possibility, no? The only people who want a civil war are a few radically pissed off Sunni's who no longer have absolute power. The Shia, the Kurds and most of the Sunni want peace, not a civil war. Unfortunately there are those in the media and on this board who would LOVE to see a civil war. Why? Because it would make Bush look bad. REALLY bad. Which, in there eyes, makes it all worth while. Now THAT'S really fucked up.