How much worse off will we be when Bush finally leaves office?

I can't imagine the answer to that question, because it's too scary. One thing is certain, however. We're way worse off now than we were when he moved into the White House, and the situation is getting more dire with every passing day.

This is what someone who knows what he's talking about (thanks to first hand experience) and who's now running for Congress had to say about our efforts in Iraq:

Joe Sestak, a former vice Admiral in the Navy who is also running for Congress in Pennsylvania against the evil Curt Weldon, gave the Democratic response saying it's time for redeployment from Iraq. Sestak also explained how Iraq is draining the coffers instead of making us safer:

Sestak said ending the U.S. presence in Iraq would free up money and energy to concentrate on other dangers, such as nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran and bolstering homeland security protections. Two days of spending in Iraq would pay for screening all air cargo on passenger planes, while five days of Iraq costs would fund the screening of all cargo coming into the nation's ports, he said.

That's a total of 7 days of spending in Iraq. With that much money we could have fixed two of the biggest problems plaguing the airline and shipping industries.

We've been in Iraq more than 178 times that amount of time. Imagine how much safer we could have made the US with that kind of cash (including rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina and reducing crime and poverty rates and our dependence on oil from the Middle East).

How exactly is Bush making us safer? By throwing away our financial resources and actively helping recruit new terrorists?

Thanks Mr. President.