Now that it looks as though Bush has won, I'd like to read some
in-depth opinions on how the world will be improved.

Specifically, I'm looking for articles which are positive, hopeful, and "feel-good".

It might be easier to find the Holy Grail, the Loch Ness Monster or the Yeti.

The world will be much improved when he is no longer president...

...four years hence

:-(

Many of the world's problems are made worse by lies, instant
gratification and by a concensis that concern for our neighbor is
silly. GW Bush is setting a tone of long term compassion for others.
I'm not sure he is sincere, but he is giving good advice.   Neil

Here is a good layout of many of his plans for the second term:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137492,00.html

Thank you!  That's one of the closest ones I've seen yet.

Oh, please neilzero . . .  spare us!

first, remove head from sphincter, THEN speak

thank you

Good thing Jack found a fair and balanced source.

I must offer a heartfelt apology for my little outburst there . . .

it's just that I can't quite reconcile 100,000 dead Iraqis with "long
term compassion for others"

I thought we were supposed to tell they were Christians by their love,
by their love . . .

Timespacette:
I think we can all agree by the findings of many mass graves that more
people would have died in the long run had Saddam remained in power. 
More Iraqis for certain (which is bad enough) and perhaps a side of
million of Americans had he in several years developed a nuclear or
biological weapon that terrorists happened to get their hands on.
I don't agree with everything Bush has done, but from the most
unbiassed standpoint I can take... the world does seem a better place
since he took the initiative to remove Saddam from power.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that those mass graves date
from 1991 when there was a rebellion in the South
- and the 'liberating forces' did nothing to prevent Saddam suppressing it 
- including letting his helicopters have free reign
- it has been suggested that the 'rebels' thought that they would be supported

Brutally suppressing a rebellion does not mean that one habitually
executes large numbers of people.

Iraq may not have been a very tolerant place to live, but it was/is a
'Balkanized' state - where rebellions need to be strongly discouraged.
I seriously doubt that this invasion would prove to be a nett saver of Iraqi lives.
I can think of one major nation that had a brutal war when a good
chink of it decided to secede.

Can anyone provide me either:
A) An article of what GOOD Bush will do
B) An article of what GOOD Kerry would have done

Or has the entire country simply voted because they hate the "other guy"?

"Official Iraqi documents recovered after the fall of Saddam?s regime
suggest a staggering 5 million executions were made during Ba?ath era
alone."
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php

""We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people
in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20
in London."
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

"Thousands of other Iraqis, including Marsh Arabs, Shi?a Muslims in
the 1970s and 1980s, and students involved in uprisings in Najaf in
1999 may also be lying in mass graves in Iraq."
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm

The mass killings very likely continued through 1999 and I'd imagine
to some extent beyond.  Saddam has decades of history as a mass
murderer and the likelyhood of him of becoming a "softy" in recent
years is slim to none.

Reguardless of mistakes made, you cannot blame the death of hundreds
of thousands to probably millions of people in Iraq on the US.  I
usually understand where people are coming from and can see another
side to an argument, however...  believing that Saddam would not
continue to kill his people is not a valid belief.

**please read about the injured in Iraq battles against the Saddam
regime if you want more evidence.  The injured were almost
non-existent as Saddam had them killed after the fighting was over.

Severisth:
Back to your question...
Here is an overview of Bush's news briefing today:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137556,00.html

It has alot of Bush's own words about his second term.  I'm sure a
transcript will be available soon but I couldn't find one yet.

Thank you jack_of_few_trades.  That is definitely the best one I've seen yet!

Dear Jack & frde,
The day that pigs fly will be the day that 'we can all agree' on
anything . . . the debate about how many lives would have been saved,
or have been saved, is just conjecture.

What I object to are politicians who pose as true Christians . . . it makes me gag.

Let's have a discussion about 'Christian Soldiers'

onward,
timespacette

<quote>
What I object to are politicians who pose as true Christians . . . it makes me gag.

Let's have a discussion about 'Christian Soldiers'
<quote>

My sentiments entirely
Perhaps we should discuss the atrocities committed by past Crusaders,
actually the 4th Crusade, converted by the Venetians into the sack of
Constantinople in 1204, bears an uncanny resemblance to the current
'Crusade'.

Jack, I don't really trust 'discovered' documents, and when it comes
to anything that Blair says, I have learnt to suspect the opposite.
True, Saddam conducted a war with the Kurds, as did our good friends
the Turks, also he 'cleaned up' the Marsh Arabs
- draining their playpen was the only way of sorting out that rather
disgusting community.
However both of those events were unlikely to be repeated.

Sorry guys, this sort of bickering is exactly what I wanted to get away from.

Now that a decision has been made, the best thing we can do as
Americans is to support the decision.  We'll have our say again in
four years.