I fear the worst in all situations. The US dollar is faltering on the world currency market because it is an unsafe bet for investment. Combine that with many financial forces actually betting against the dollar, trying to make it collapse, and the world is in for a fun ride. This actually benefits nobody, outside of China, as many analysts have noted a euro exceding $1.50 US puts many European countries in danger of financial collapse as well. The dollar's decline, contrary to many left-leaning beliefs, has virtually nothing to do with any of Bush's policies, but almost all to do with the fact that over 60% of the US budget is locked into uncapped entitlement spending and the US Govt has been deficit spending every year (that's right - there never were any surpluses under Clinton) for over 50 years. The US Govt - financially - is a nut house and no one wants to deal with it. That is maybe unfair as politicians from opposite ends of the spectrum (Forbes, Ron Paul, Jerry Brown) do point out the lunacy and get labeled as "fringe" or "unelectable." I guess it is true. So to deal with this financially unstable environment, our major candidates plan to fix things by nationalizing the health care system? Cause, that is what Thomas Jefferson had in mind? Foolishness.
The war in Iraq, in my belief, was necessary, and would have happened no matter what. I think the world is better off with the SOB dead, and a few European socialists losing out on their UN paychecks. His behavior did pose a threat to the US. After 9/11 and a review of universal belief in Iraq's military and weapons program, if Bush had not gone in, the Dems would have used it as an example of how he should not lead the country (and were gearing up to do that) . The platform would not be one of pacifism, but of being ready and better militarily. Kerry did not pop out of a vaccuum. That is why they voted for it. Bad idea? Hindsight is a wonderful gift. I remember 40 years of deficit spending and a war on poverty, and a Gulf of Tonkin.