"...a man that was caught red handed lying to his nation about WMD..."
In order for this to be true, you must be able to show that Bush knew there were no WMDs at the time he claimed they were there. Show me the evidence of this. Dozens of members of Congress, including prominent Democrats, also made public statements that they believed Iraq had WMDs. Were they lying too?
While the Duelfer report did indeed find that there were no WMDs, Duelfer made it clear that Saddam's WMD program was only on hold until he could get sanctions lifted which he was working with trusted members of the UN Security Council to do. The possibility that WMDs were hidden or moved across the border into Syria has not been ruled out.
"...killing thousands of US troops and civilians..."
IraqBodyCount.net claims 14-16,000 civilian casualties but according to one article I've read, determining the number of civilian casualties accurately is very difficult. The point is that we don't really know how many civilians have died as a direct result of the war. One estimate of the number of civilians killed by the Saddam regime is 600,000. If that's anywhere close to accurate, the number of lives lost during the US-led war will absolutely pale in comparison to the number of lives that will have been saved at the rate people were dying under Saddam. Why is it that you are so eager to point out the deaths caused by the US, but you turn a blind eye to the horrible and inhumane deaths inflicted by Saddam?
"...has failed to produce or capture the man that attacked your nation..."
While Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, many Al Qaeda leaders and operatives have been captured and there ability to mount another attack on the US has been diminished. While we are still vulnerable to such Al Qaeda attacks, the lack of any such attack on US soil since 9/11 is one indication that we've made progress. Another indication that we've made progress is that the best attempt bin Laden could make to influence our election is to make a big, bad tape. Al Qaeda would certainly have attacked us before the election the way they did Spain if they were capable of doing so.
"...has been responsible for the loss of millions of US jobs..."
Show me the data that ties Bush administration policies to the loss of jobs in America. Any honest person must acknowledge the economic challenge that presented itself to the Bush administration. The economy was already headed towards recession when Bush took office, fueled by the dot-com bust. On top of a recession, America suffered a devastating attack on it's home soil. This almost single-handedly destroyed the airline industry which has still not recovered. Despite all of this, despite record-high oil prices, despite the lingering threat of terror and the uncertainty surrounding Iraq, the American economy is growing and jobs are being added especially when you include the Household Survey indicator on top of the usually-quoted Payroll Survey. Unemployment is low. Wal-Mart and Home Depot are full, people are spending money. This idea that the American economy sucks is a myth even if you do mistakingly discount the effects of recession, terrorism, and record-high oil prices.
"...has piecemeal taken freedom after freedom away from you..."
Well, I actually somewhat agree with you here, but I hope you're not suggesting that a Kerry administration would not continue to grow government and whittle away freedoms. This unfortunately is what we get in America regardless of Republican or Democrat. The Libertarians and Constitionists simply don't have significant support yet.
"...has violated just about every part of the Geneva convention..."
I don't know much about the Geneva convention, so I can't dispute you here, however your "just about every part" clause raises a red flag to me. Have any of our so-called closest allies ever violated any of the rules of the Geneva convention, and if so are you equally as critical of them?
"...alienated all of your closest allies..."
All of them...really? How about Great Britain and Australia? Have we alienated our allies or have they alienated us? If they have been alienated bc we will not yield US sovereignty to them in matters that involve the safety of our citizens then so be it. If countries like France for which there is mounting evidence of cooperation with Saddam Hussein to scandalize the Oil for Food program are alienated by our actions, then so be it. I'm tired of the US constantly being acccused of corruption, while our so-called allies get a pass on actively cooperating with Saddam Hussein. Where's the outcry over the Oil For Food scandal by the the Haliburton-war-for-oil crowd?
"...actually not been able the country is safer...increasing ten fold the number of people out there that want to destroy you?"
While we are not safe, we are safer than we were on 9/11. In a book called "Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush is Winning the War on Terror", Richard Miniter details countless captures and broken up terror plots. It is no accident that there has not been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. It may be true that our enemies have increased in number, but would you have us initiate a policy of appeasement to people who purposely kill innocent women and children and who get a thrill out of lopping off heads? Would you suggest that we not retaliate for the thousands who lost their lives on 9/11? Appeasement doesn't work. You can't reason with people who aren't interested in reasoning with you. We are at war, not bc we want to be, but bc we were attacked.
My purpose is not to defend Bush. I have my share of problems with him, but I am interested in truth rather than rhetoric. The arguments that you make are one-sided, distorted, and in some cases completely detatched from reality.
Oh by the way, if you are Corran, as in Corran Addison, I think your boating videos are some of the best out there.