I personally feel Bush has misjudged the amount of anti-american animosity this war will create with the Middle East. I have a feeling that the threat of terrorism from Saddam was far lower than the threat of terrorism that will exist as a result of this war. Terrorism does not require high-tech nor chemical weapons. Terrorists have all the time they need and nearly limitless "volunteers" who can more than likely find a weakness sooner or later in a free society like ours. They don't need nukes or anything, we have enough dangerous infrastructure that exists on its own and they already know it. Heck, they don't even need to think up any ideas for terrorism, just buy a few Clancy novels and think outside the box. Scary.. I think possibly the short term consequences might be better (no Saddam, no chemical weapons given to terrorists-- unless he's already given them away..) but the long term consequences are likely to haunt us. Was war the ONLY possible way to rid Saddam? I thought the beginning of the war was interesting with the targetted strike. Why could they not just wait until the intelligence panned out for that initial attack, wait until intelligence figured where he was next, then hit that, wait, and repeat, and repeat. They'd get him eventually without all the collateral damage. If the point is to kill him and the top brass, they could most certainly do it entirely without the shock and awe. I'm sure Bush has a better view of all this than I do but it just doesn't make sense to me. I guess I just don't get the war thing-- it just seems like cracking an egg by dropping a piano on it (there are much better ways).