Dan Morrow: No, but only because the Bush administration so badly mismanaged the war and the "peace" that followed. The list of Bush errors is lengthy, as detailed by Republicans, Democrats, and independent experts alike.

Only Mr. Bush can't think of anything that he would have done differently. Saddam in prison is good, but would surely have been better to imprison him six months later, with Osama bin Laden captured and a truly global coalition in place to enforce his removal?

With a combination of well-managed diplomacy and judiciously applied financial and military pressure, Saddam might be on trial at the Hague at significantly less cost in lives, treasure and international ill will.

And we might have a military reserve in place to deal with Iran, North Korea, or other genuinely imminent military threats. This liberal agrees with George H. W. Bush . . . writing after the FIRST Iraq war.

"[September 11, 2001], this nation saw the face of a new enemy, we discovered that there is no safety behind vast oceans. For our own safety, we resolve to take the battle to the enemy." President George W. Bush

Mark Tate: Of course we are safer, much safer after the invasion of Iraq and with Saddam in jail and Osama Bin Laden on the run. We have brought the battle to the homes of the terrorists and we are decisively winning the War. Saddam's army defeated, Saddam in prison, and 75% of Al Qaeda either dead of in prison.

We are safer when there are fewer dictators who hate us in charge of large armies and more people free in the Middle East. Fifty million people have been liberated from despotic, totalitarian regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We are safer, and with four more years of President Bush the entire world will be safer.