[stevem99]

As for 2004, he does not strike me as a man who cares much about re-election, or he wouldn't take the political risks he does.

Uh, right. What "political risks" are you talking about? You mean attacking Iraq, an action that was supported by the majority of Americans? For that matter, the 90% of those who opposed the war weren't going to vote for Bush anyway, so that's no loss for him.

[jwalsh07]

For that matter, the 90% of those who opposed the war weren't going to vote for Bush anyway, so that's no loss for him.

Neither are you.

[roses of sharon]

No risk?

When was the last time the US attacked a country who had not attacked first?

The risks were and are: oil wells burning, Iraq attacks on Israel, and all surrounding countries, WMD or nukes used by Saddam, the Arab street rising against its leaders in Jordon, Eqypt, ect, Saddams massacre of civilians, daily terrorists attacks in US malls, schools, and government buildings, anger of allies, and on and on.

Plenty of domestic policy risks also.

Some voters are emotionally attached to Bush since 9/11, and he will get their vote regardless.

But most will vote according to their mood that day, because most pay little attention to news.