Just a quick question. The democrats over the weekend ripped the Bush administration for not intervening in Haiti earlier. They asked why the administration didn't take steps to remove the leader of a country where it seems most of the people there were unhappy with the way they were being governed. The democrats wanted the U.S. to send troops and step in without the UN, without NATO. Yet we go to Iraq, remove a ruthless dictator who had killed tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people and the administration is chastised for removing him from power. I realize there are obvious differences, but in the grand scheme of things, how is going to Iraq all that much different than Haiti? Should we just have waited for people to rise up in Iraq and overthrow a ruthless dictator and then step in? It doesn't make any sense to me. Both countries had people who hated their leader. We are now in both countries without UN or NATO oversight - I guess you can just spin whatever you want to suit your need....