To live and die in Iraq. For exactly a year now, it has either been the shining example of America's relentless pursuit of terrorists or the most popular reason to hate President Bush and his administration.

Congratulations?

One year ago today, Bush stood before Americans and said a war against Saddam Hussein and his Republican Guard was warranted. He said that Saddam was a monster, that he was capable of perpetual atrocity to his own people and guilty of carrying that out as long as he remained in power. Saddam was vanquished in a few months' time and the man with alleged ties to al-Qaida terrorists seemed out of power forever.

Then, the glaring holes in Bush's pretense for war were revealed. The ties from Saddam to al-Qaida terrorists never were fully distinguished. The weapons of mass destruction never were found, and judging from documented evidence, might never have existed. Even if the nation wasn't actually misled into going to war, the world had enough evidence to at least ponder the possibility.

Then the backlash began. What was the actual cost of ousting a dictator who may or may not have had ties to convicted terrorists, and may or may not have harbored weapons capable of limitless damage? All facts, politics, emotions and dispositions aside, the founding argument for a war against Iraq had holes and the chance that Americans were dying for a reason unbeknownst to them became very real.

Which is why it's fair to say that in the year since Bush declared war on Iraq, it's become very popular to exhibit a strong dislike for the 43rd man in the Oval Office. More questions about motives for war exist now than a year ago, and there are now even more unanswered questions as to why American soldiers are dying in the name of freedom.

How much really has changed in one year, though? There were anti-war dissenters as soon as the prospect of war loomed on the horizon. Accordingly, proponents of war with Iraq existed then, too. Which is why it's now fascinating to see how this year-long war - culminated fighting or not, as long as American soldiers are dying, it's war - has become the divining rod for political affiliation in 2004.

In the post-Iraq war America, you're either with Bush or you're against him. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, and both sides of the aisle are compelled to make the same argument. Not every liberal is Michael Moore, but not every conservative is Bill O'Reilly, either. It's just the current climate that makes one a zealot to the opposing side.

It's presumptuous to blame the year-long war entirely for the growing levels of mistrust that many Americans have in the presidency. But just as easily as some call the war an unmitigated triumph, a dissenter will call it an alarmingly messy debacle. The only certainty seems to be that yes, Saddam is out of power and yes, the weapons of mass destruction don't really exist.

And with both major arguments for going to war answered, what makes it forever perplexing is that all the real questions still are going unanswered.