You've been told that Bush is tought on terrorism. Here's proof of just how "tough" he is: BUSH: LETTING TERRORISTS GO FREE (when it suits him) Everything you need to know about Bush's commitment to anti-terrorism can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ Between 9/11 and March 2003, the Pentagon repeatedly asked the Bush administration for permission to launch a strike against terrorist leader al-Zarqawi and his chemical weapons lab in a remote corner of Iraq. The Bush administration repeatedly refused, because they felt that a strike against al-Zarqawi could undercut their case for war against Saddam. Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMDs, or even a WMD program. al-Zarqawi had both. Yet Bush decided not to stop al-Zarqawi when he had the chance. Saddam wasnt one-tenth the threat to us that terrorist networks are, yet Bush let a terrorist leader with WMDs go free, because he didnt want anti-terrorism to interfere with his war plans for Iraq. Al-Zarqawi later went on to plan massive terrorist strikes against England and Jordan. The intended death toll would have numbered in thousands. (Fortunately, his plans were derailed before he could strike.) Today, al-Zarqawi is a leading anti-American figure in Fallujah, and our troops continue to fight and die trying to get him. All this could have been avoided. But Bush chose not to stop a terrorist leader when he had the chance, because he had other plans. Those of you who typically support Republican candidates: does Bush really do justice to your party's values? He's certainly not making your safety a priority. Those of you who don't want to see Bush re-elected, please forward this far and wide. Everybody you know either supports Bush, or knows someone who supports Bush. This was written by an associate on another board. Please, for the good of America, do something positive with your vote on the second.