"1) Afghanistan is a democracy, which eliminates one of the main causes for terrorism - a feeling of helplessness most muslims feel under totalitarian regimes - and what do you know, no more terrorist training camps."

Kabul is a democracy. The rest of the country is under warlordism. And you morons dropped this ball when you went to Irak.

"2) Libya abondoned their nuclear weapons programs."

This is true. The linkage to Bush policy is not a slam dunk, but could be credibly made. Your one valid point. Have a cookie.

Man, Libya was a threat though, wasn't it? They were as close as my 14 year old to actually building a bomb. What about NK though smart guy?

"3) Lebanon booted Syrian troops out of their country and held free elections."

I am also aware that the two strongest waves of anti-Danish riots in the Middle East happened in Lebanon and Syria. Coincidence? I don't think so. And in any case, elections do not always equal a good outcome, as Irak is showing.

Is Lebanon closer to having good relations with Israel now that Syria is gone? Wait - don't answer. I know the response to that one too.

"4) Palestine elected Hamas, who will recognize Israel to receive all the money they need."

One Hamas politician said they might, if Israel jumps through hoops they will not jump through. But one politician does not a Hamas make. Nice try though.

"5) Saddam was removed and a democracy put in place, removing a destablizing force in the region."

And inserting an even more destabilizing force. Refer to recent comments of the Director of Shin Bet.

"6)  Germany, France and Russia are now brow beating both Syria and Iran, instead of aiding and abedding."

Please provide citations to the aiding and abetting and provide evidence that they do anything more than US companies (as, for examply, Mr Cheney's Halliburton, which still does business in Iran). Diplomatically broaching the subject of bringing Iran before the UNSC is serious stuff, but it is not brow beating. That's what you morons do.

"Osama is on the run, and Al Quieda has run out of cash, resulting in no terrorist attacks since 9/11, when prior to 9/11, Al Quieda hit two of our foreign embassies, a warship, and the World Trade Center once before."

No terrorist attacks since 911? Did I miss Richard Reed's connections to Al Qaeda? How 'bout all that stuff in Saudi Arabia, those attacks on Western Compounds. How 'bout Madrid's 311. How 'bout London last year? How 'bout Indonesia?"

Please provide evidence Al Qaeda is "out of cash". That's right, you can't. You've pulled it out of your ass.

"So again, by what measure are we less safe?"

See above. Terrorist attacks have increased, not decreased, since the US invaded Irak. Simple numbers, and you know, facts are stubborn things.

Not that that troubles ignorant idoelogues such as yourself.

it's like being forced to answering the question, "Did you ever stop beating your wife, yes or no."  The premise is dead wrong.

Invading Iraq for regime change was right, even though we will pay a price doing it.