pmb, your analogy is distasteful, but I would agree that Bush utilizes Cheney's insight and expertise extensively - precisely why he was chosen for the job, supporters like to say. Should Kerry get elected, I suppose he could always use Edwards expertise to sue his doctor for malpractice.

"Kerry, like many in the populace, questions Bush's actions in Iraq. That IMO is legit-Saddam posed no "imminent threat" to the US. We went in ill-prepared and lacking the troop numbers to get the job done. That seems like a "colossal error" as does flying to an carrier ship and proclaiming victory. Granted hind sight is 20/20. We're in this Iraq mess for the long haul, Kerry or Bush. The liberation of Iraq from the terror of Saddam is something that needed to be done, but has it done anything to improve our Homeland Security. bin Laden continues to operate in some measure. I don't know if we would have got him if we would have stayed out of Iraq (at least for a while) and continued our focus on al Quaida, but it couldn't have hurt our chances."

Kerry has done more than question the actions of the US in Iraq - he has called it a mistake, an error and a diversion. Disregarding the message that sends to our troops and allies, not to mention our enemies, it seems inconceivable that he would favor the continuation and/or expansion of present Bush policies in Iraq.
Saddam was not about to attack us, nor did he have WMDs apparently, but at what point down the road would both of those circumstances have changed?
Bell rang, gotta go.