Jorge, I disagree with your premise that Bush is responsible for our "diminished [status] in the eyes of the world." I also strongly disagree with the absurd contention that Bush misled or deceived us. As to the former, the EU was already going its own direction. That's why we couldn't even hope to maintain a sanctions regime against Iraq. Support for economic sanctions was failing - don't you remember the cries that the US led sanctions regime was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi babies? You weren't one of those who believed that, were you? In reality, Saddam, the UN Secretariat, and 3 Security Council Member states, France, Russia and China, were not only scamming the Oil for Food program for Billions of dollars, they were using the "food" money for weapons, palaces and other perks for the Ba'athist Nazi leadership of Iraq.

UN inspections could not work without totally open cooperation and transparency from the Iraqi government. Saddam Hussein made a monkey out of those inspectors. If he had nothing to hide, then he must have taken the chance of US reaction based on French assurances that they would veto any resolution for US use of force. The UN and the left took the position, "please fool me," and Hussein obliged. After 9/11 the US absolutely could not take the chance that Iraq would acquire more WMD ... yes, "more." We know they had them, because they used them to the cost of hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. So, all this moaning that the Bush administration "deceived" the people and the world community, or abandoned our traditional allies is nonsense. That alliance was dead - died with the evaporation of the Soviet threat to Europe. Personally, I'd rather an administration prepared to act for our national defense and interests than an administration which requires the support of the EU.

Where is NATO now? Do they have our back? Are they willing to send any forces to help stabilize Iraq? The answer is no.

Personally, I'm not an optimist - Bush may believe that democracy has a chance in an Arab nation. I don't. The Kurds in the north could support a democratic form of government, but they are not Arabs. The idea of Sunis or Shias supporting democracy is absurd, but like I said, Bush is an optimist - maybe he's right.

I think many of Bush's policy positions are wrong - stem cell research, refusal to obtain discounts from drug companies for large scale government purchases ... but for me, the over riding issue is what is referred to as the War on Terrorism. I think it is more accurate to call it the Jihadist Islamo-Fascist war on the non-Muslim world, but that would be a politically incorrect mouthfull. IMHO Bush, the simple ass kicking cowboy gets it. The French don't. There's evil afoot, and he's going after it. That is a strong moral voice. When Bush announced, "You're either with us or against us," he was at his best - simple, forceful - recognizing that evil in the world had acted so boldly on 9/11 that we couldn't sweep it under the rug any longer - no more responsive gestures like Clinton did by lobbing a few cruise missiles here or there. We are at war - but a war not of our choosing or making. Better win. Only Bush has winning as a policy goal.

Enjoy the Music. Trust your ears. Laugh at Folks Who Claim to Know it All.