Hussein didn't have WMDs but - tricky SOB - he was waiting for the U.N. sanctions to be lifted so he could get them. He supported terrorists by paying families of suicide bombers.

Bush doesn't flip-flop. No, sirree, he stands firm in his conviction that whatever he does is right even if the logic behind the actions are flawed. We had to remove Hussein because if we let the U.N. inspections continue then the inspectors wouldn't have found any WMDs, which would mean the U.N. sanctions would get lifted and Hussein would get WMDs. So either Hussein had WMDs (which was untrue) or he would eventually get them.

But Bush couldn't have known all this before the invasion of Iraq. So either Bush was counting on there being WMDs (and he struck out), or he could see into the future that Hussein was acting to get the sanctions lifted (yeah-right!), or he planned to invade all along and was looking for a convenient reason. Bush assumed that Hussein, being an evil nasty dictator, must always lie. False assumption like the good guys always tell the truth. Fact is, Hussein said he didn't have WMDs and didn't - he told the truth - and without WMDs, Hussein was not a threat at all to our National Security. Therefore the invasion was illegal.

That Hussein was a dictator was an after-the-fact excuse to justify the illegal behavior. Bush behaved in a manner detrimental to the reputation of the U.S.. I state this not as a Hussein lover or as a U.S. traitor which the Bush Administration labels anyone who disagrees with them. I state this as an American concerned for our National reputation, security, and future. I state this as a parent and one who wants a better future.

By promoting a policy of preemptive invasions Bush may have sent the battle offshore but how long before the bloodshed returns to haunt us? We do not have a monopoly on preemptive actions and, in fact, the policy can serve to justify any aggressive action by any nation. The policy castrates the United Nations and thoroughly subverts any attempts to create a World Peace. Simply, if any nation has a right to defend itself by launching an offense, does not any group that perceives itself under a threat also have a similar right? In a perverse way, the preemptive policy justifies the actions of terrorists. Surely, all humans have a right to defend themselves and if you perceive that you are under attack or may eventually come under attack can you not defend yourself by striking first?

If you answered "No!" to the question you're probably a weak-kneed, bleeding-heart, gutless, tree-hugging, Liberal Democrat - at least, accoridng to the Bush view. In the real world you'd answer "no" because you can see how violence could easily escalate under such a policy. Any act could be perceived incorrectly or any aggression could be justified by claiming a non-existent threat. Preemption benefits the strong, that is, the well-armed but stimulates the desperate. With a policy of preemption Bush guarantees may profitable years for those trafficking in arms and nation rebuilding, though at the expense of humanity. The policy places profits over human liberties and freedoms for the aggressive policy demands heightened security. Bush has mortgaged a future of hope and peace for long-term profits and American aggression.

And I state this as a Patriot, one who doesn't want our great country to become a tool for a small clique of dangerous self-absorbed, religious-political fanatics. We are not to become a sick variation of Hussein's Iraq or Stalinist Russia but if Bush remains in power America could become essentially a dictatorship.

Vote on November 2. Vote for Kerry.