In the run up to the American presidential elections we will be asking a panel of voters - selected from as wide a cross-section of people as possible across the US - to share their views on the key issues.
MEET THE PANEL
Name: Corey Harrison
Lives: Chicago, Illinois
Works: Real estate
In 10 words or less: "A liberal Jew with a cynical view"
I don't believe that Bush should lose because he brought us into Iraq, he should lose for the way he brought us into Iraq and how he has handled it since.
Like many Americans, I believed the Middle East required a catalyst for change and that a democratic Iraq could be just that.
However, my feelings of support quickly deteriorated as I saw our administration's heavy handed approach to diplomacy and their childlike mentality of portraying the world as either "with us" or "against us".
Unfortunately, the handover of power in Iraq seems similar to the war debate: a defined objective with poor planning and implementation.
Is the term "sovereignty" appropriate when a foreign military enforces the country's security and undoubtedly influences its decisions?
The White House will conveniently change the definition of sovereignty to raise their chances of re-election.
But true independence will not be achieved until Europe and the Middle East are willing to adequately assist in dismantling the militants - vital assistance that President Bush has been unable to secure.
Without this, the US electorate will continue to see a daily body count of US soldiers, and will not be fooled by another "Mission Accomplished" banner.
From BBCArabic.com: I think that Bush deserves to win the election, because he saved us from the tyrant Saddam. If the war wasn't waged, Saddam and his sons would have continued to kill us. We may have lost a lot, but let's remember that the price for freedom is very dear.
Fawzi, Baghdad, Iraq
From BBCArabic.com: Where is the democracy that Bush has promised to deliver to us? Look at what happened in Abu Ghraib and the actual state of Iraq.
Abu Suleiman, Syria
Corey, I agree with you completely. Going to Iraq was the right thing and I commend Bush for doing so in spite of all the opposition he faced. However, the diplomacy and war logistics were handled horribly and have cost the country dearly.
Suhas Joshi, Seattle, WA, USA
Mr Kerry voted for the action in Iraq as well. As for 'mishandling' the war - the Iraqis have self-rule. Not bad for 15 months of work. Also, consider Afghanistan and Libya. These countries are more open than ever. This makes the US safer. Remember the UN resolution of 15-0 that Iraq was in violation of important agreements. Someone has to enforce the rules.
Brian Mercer, Columbus, OH, USA
I agree with Mr Harrison that it was the lack of sincere diplomacy by the Bush administration and their "with us or against us" charge that had the biggest impact on my feelings about their credibility on a domestic and world stage. The issue of Iraq is not a black and white one for taxpayers or for family members of soldiers paying the ultimate sacrifice, just like Vietnam. By not acknowledging the existence of the grey areas and constantly attempting to redefine what the reasons were for going to war, the president has become the ultimate divider.
Troy H, California, USA
So Mr Harrison is going to vote for Kerry because he feels the Iraq was "a defined objective with poor planning and implementation". Well, I'd really like to hear about this razor sharp plan of action Kerry has. In fact, I think the Democrats would like to know because if he indeed has one, he's been keeping it a tighter secret than his VP search.
Paul Christopher, Temple Hills, MD, USA
I agree completely. The US went into Iraq without the UN, without the 'proof' of WMDs, and with too much propaganda and 'misleading' information. I agree that the Middle East requires change, but the results do not justify the means. I won't agree that Iraq will have sovereignty until its government begins doing things that the US doesn't approve of.
Joshua W, Worth, IL, USA