Oh god, amos, only always (grumpy in the morining that is) :^)

...but it's not about the Bush clan. All the same arguements would occur if it were any Republican (and maybe rightfully so). Again, there is no moral code over which we unite as a nation that we collectively perceive as greater than that of any potential invade-ee (country to invade).

Ironically, though the more pacifist element among us might accept a Democrat president -- that's only because a they "trust" the morality of a Democrat president. Then the "right" would not trust his ability to prosecute a military action. Catch 22 huh?

The 3,000 dead seemed to be enough to somewhat unite us around an invasion of Afganistan (though most here would not agree). Iraq will take more -- much more -- to unite us in the concept.

If it is our goal to pursue military action -- and we want a united USA behind the idea -- we will have to accept as the price at least one major attack on us with weapons of mass destruction. I think that may be why so many of our populace would rather gamble that that kind of attack seems unlikely.