Do you think there are people who voted for Bush who think we invaded Iraq for the wrong reasons and we should not be in Iraq?...that "terrorism" is now on the rise instead of diminishing?... that we are making five more terrorists for each one killed?... that we are not safer, but more at risk because of the policies followed? What do you call these people? Turncoats? Traitors? Conservatives gone bad? Why do you have to put a label on everyone. That is truly a sign of shallow thinking. I call them Americans. In a Washington AP article in my local paper it discusses Americans thoughts on terrorism as reflected by polls. Half of Americans have concerns that terrorists might be winning the war on terrorism, and 1 in 5 believe strongly that way. Two thirds said it was likely that terrorists would strike in the US before the Nov. elections. A third said it was likely there would be an attack at one of the political conventions this summer. Two thirds of Americans acknowledge concern that terrorists may be recruiting faster than the US can keep up. A third feel strongly this is the case. The Bush administration calls the invasion of Iraq as "a front line in the war on terrorism". Those who say Bush made a right decision to invade Iraq, 48 percent, are now about even with those who think it was a mistake, 49 percent. Sampling error was +- 3%. I guarantee that a lot of these people voted for Bush. Do you think of all of these people as "commie liberals"? That would be very wrong. This is not a case of ultra-liberals against ultra-conservatives as much as you would try to make it to be, and as much as you might think, you are not smarter than all of these people. This is people, like you and me, trying to understand and make their minds up on what they think is RIGHT (as in not wrong). Try to stick with the issues and see both sides. We'll all be better for it. Unfortunately, when people lie or try to hide or cover up things in the past, it becomes an issue. Many of us are forgiving people, and can put that aside depending on the magnitude of it. If there is a track record of it, people become concerned. In politics, perception is everything and the spin doctors spin. You have to get past the spin whether you're for it or against it. I supported two Republican governors in Illinois who did well and were both multi-term govs. I supported Ronald Regan. I am a conserv-eral. My belief: we need the money being spent in Iraq being spent here and our foreign policy cannot take another four years of the Bush administration! He just has the wrong people around him and they made some bad decisions. I think he could have been a good president had he not been so influenced by those people, but the buck stops with the president. Besides that, he refuses to pronounce NUCLEAR. Never! He will not! Does that say anything to you about the man's character. Taken with all of the other "personal revelations" that have surfaced. It does me. It's something I can't overlook. If he corrected himself, I would overlook it. The fact that he's gonna damn well do whatever the hell George Bush is gonna do and to hell with everyone who doesn't like it...... some might think that's a good trait for a leader. I don't in this case. In this case, It belittles everyone else who takes the time to "get it right". Perception is everything. It's NUCLEAR, stupid!