[This is not directly related to yesterday's debate.] After going through most of fine comments posted above, I feel like making a humble attempt to post some of my views and, in the process, look forward to learning something. Many have opined on how he should not have gone to war in Irwq but few have talked about the limited choice Prez Bush faced at that time. Let us recall some points first. 1. Sadam acting suspiciously ( denying access to many sites) for many years and even ater very stern resolution form the security council was passed 2. Intelligence from teh russians that Saddam was planning a terror attack against America (which was recently revealed) 3. The extra pressure for home security faced by the prez after 9/11 What would be expected from an american president at that time? Wait some more time and allow Saddam use his WMD against american interests? With the benefit of hindsight, now we now know that Iraq did not have WMD; but we did not know this at that time and Saddam was acting suspiciously. Even Kerry had lent support to attacking Iraq at that time. Now comes the issue of gaining support from other allies. America was the supposed target of Saddam (not France and GErmany) and time was running fast. Some of you might think it is an extreme view but I would rather advocate condemning France and GErmany for reneging on their earlier commitments of meting out "severe consequences to Iraq" and not sending troops to Iraq even after the war. Well, thats my view! I salute prez bush for having the guts to take a firm decision, with the level of information and threat america faced at that time, on attacking iraq. (Now pls dont ask where the WMd is). I sincerely believe that was the right decisoin to make at that time. Though I dont have the right to vote, like most of you here, I hope American people are smart enough to keep Mr Bush in power for 4 more years. And as mentioned already, I expect to learn something here. cheers