I agree, Roel, except that there seems to be a lot of Bush bashing going on here, rather than a calm, reasonable discussion of the facts. Certain people here keep kneejerking whenever someone tries to say anything positive about Mr. Bush, or suggests that he is not 100% responsible for the decision to enter Iraq and everything that has happened there since then. He did make the decison, of course, based on what he was told by his advisers, and he does bear command responsibility in his role as commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces. Mistakes were made in Iraq, but he is not responsible for all of them, unless you intend to hold him responsible for what every private there does. His intentions were good, I believe, although I will be the first to admit that a lot of graves have been filled by good intentions. And Clinton's role must be factored into this discussion, because there is evidence that it was his lack of response (or ineffective response when one was made) that emboldened Osama bin Laden and his cohorts to make the September 11th attack, which got all of this mess started. Had that attack never taken place, Iraq most likely would never have been invaded. Nor Afghanistan, for that matter. Now, I am not saying that Mr. Bush is the greatest president the USA has ever had; I know better than that. To me, however, he is a good, Christian man who found that war and foreign policy in general are a lot more complex than he initially believed. And I also believe that his advisers must share in the blame for the troubles in Iraq.