I guess you haven't read today's news.
You shouldn't believe everything you read/see/hear in the news. It's all biased no matter what channel or paper you read.
Plain and simple, the world is a safer place without Saddam. No matter which way you argue it, the world is safer. I'm not saying that the war in Iraq was handled with the utmost intelligence, however, I believe that Bush was damned no matter what he did. The question boils down to preimptive strike. Do you attack someone before they attack? Or do you wait for someone to kill a few thousand of your own people before you attack? If Bush had not invaded Iraq, and in 10-15 years from now when Saddam did acquire what he was looking for, people would have said, that President Bush should have taken care of it when he had the chance. And since he did invade, people are saying, damn that president he didn't have to do it.
A main problem with people's discontent of the war is that we Americans have an extremley short attention span. We can't stand anything lasting longer than a few minutes. We constantly like change (not me). That's why everyone wants Obama for president "CHANGE." I'm not a hardcore Bush supporter, however, I did vote for him and I still do like him as a president. The reason people are so fed up with Bush, is because he's never "changed." He's the same person he was when he started. That's what makes a good president, the fact that his view didn't change when the (quick minded) public opinion changed. Anyone would agree that if you're going out for the baseball team, you give it %110, and you don't quit the team when it's losing, but think of another strategy, and if that doesn't work, you think up another one.
