Well written. I appreciate your open mindedness.

Bush promised to hunt down Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. It didn't happen. All the commitment in the world doesn't mean a thing if the President hasn't got the wherewithal to follow through. Results matter, right?

vey nice Dawn, I understand your concern and feel similarly on weighing priorities, and I have come to the same conclusion - for now.

Mainstream America is placing their mindset into the minds of the Islamic culture in order to figure out how to win the war on terror. But it doesn't work that way. We acknowledge that we love our freedoms, we love capitalism and a democratic society. So if everybody else in the world could just try it, they'd see how great we are, right? Wrong, folks.

The Islamic culture LIVES BY the Koran. The Koran has no room for democracy. The Koran states that ANY criticism of the Koran can be construed as a slam against Mohammad, so any criticism against the Koran is punishable by death. (That will work real nice alongside freedom of speech).

The very meaning of Islam is the unquestioning submission to Allah and to Islamic law. Islam is seen as perfect by Muslims. It is a total way of life. It doesn't need any new ideas or any legal revisions to complement any new learning or new needs of society. In fact, Islam regards even the suggestion of new ideas or legal revisions as being unIslamic. And if something is unIslamic, it could be construed as being slanderous to Muhammad. And guess what happens next?

And America is sooooo convinced and hellbent that if we just give the Islamic people the ability to fend for themselves in a free market, why, they're going to love it! The free market, capitalism, the greed that comes with profits, etc. oh, yes, America this will fit nicely alongside the ideals of Muhammad.

Part of the reason, if not the majority of the reason, that the Arabic world hates us so much is because of western influence. And so Bush's vision is to COMPLETELY westernize them? Um, okay.

I already believe Bush is going to win this election, and I believe Bush is going to further spread our troops around the Middle East, making us weaker and more unprotected against an enemy that cannot be properly combatted with tanks. I believe Bush in his heart, means well, and truly believes he is doing the right thing, but I believe America is not winning the war on terror with anything Bush is doing. Maybe winning a few battles here and there, but not the war. We CAN'T win the war with Bush's strategy. Will he have things all nicely wrapped up in 4 years? Or will we put in another President who has a different strategy, modified by events that will happen in the next 4 years, but be unable to do anything effective because all our troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan making sure people who have for millenia lived under the Koran are enjoying the concept of fending for themselves?

I have to vote for Kerry this election, unless I've decided to flee this country by then, because I am apparently a minority who believes that a man having a vision is not as important as the vision itself.

boomcrashbaby,

If you are right, then all the more reason for an overwhelming force of power. If we can't change their minds, they need to be gotten rid of. Honestly, liberty and freedom are a more contagious bug than you or I may ever realize, of course that's because we have it every day.

If we can't change their minds, they need to be gotten rid of.

Huh? Saudi Arabia, our 'allies' who are one of the biggest fosters of terrorism needs to be gotten rid of? The Sudan, Iran, Palestine, the Phillipines? We just need to wipe out the entire Muslim world?

Go mad cowboy go, America's got your back.

well, if that's what it takes, then let's get started now.

What this all means is it is time for an Islamic Reformation - Christianity was jsut as dogmatic, contentious, fucked up as Islam is now, but has gradually come out of it over the last 500 hundred years. Islam has neve rhad this - now is the time and if they see that their exceptionalist worldview only leads to constant death and destruction - primarily their own - then enough will see the light and foster the necessary change. It is happening in various quarters - primarily outside the Middle East - but it needs to be moved along, by, in essence, crushing it at its source.

We cannot do this alone, we need more help, and this has been Bush's weak area, but if we are steadfast our allies (Saudi Arabia isn't a real ally, just one of mutual convenience) will come along because it is their fight too. Spain, France, Russia, etc have seen they are not exempt.

Christianity was jsut as dogmatic, contentious, fucked up as Islam is now, but has gradually come out of it over the last 500 hundred years.

There are some of us who are still victimized by Christianity, and who do not see the progress you do. Granted, the iron maidens have been replaced with baseball bats, so I guess 500 years have brought a tad bit of reform.

So Bush's plan here is to do to Islam what it has taken 500 years to do to Christianity? Truly then, he must be the Chosen One, blessed with immortality.

And um, Eric, what is an Islamic Reformation exactly, when the very basis of the Koran does not allow any change at all? How can you modify something whose basic premise says that any modification is punishable by death?

...all the more reason for an overwhelming force of power.

And you expect to see that from Bush? Where was the overwhelming force in Tora Bora? Where was the overwhelming force in Pakistan? Where was the overwhelming force in the occupation of Iraq? Where was overwhelming force back when we still knew exactly where North Korea's nuclear fuel was?

How is it that there can be a whole national debate on whether Bush sent enough troops to secure Iraq, and then after one speech people are ready to credit him with such forcefulness in fighting terror? Why is that Kerry has to prove himself as an "Islamic hunting vampire", but Bush gets a free pass for having tried to invade and occupy a country on the cheap?

Maybe words do matter more than results.

The fact that Bush is taking the fight to them, rather that Kerry's desire to wait for the fight to come to us is the deciding factor. I personally don't want to be the mother who is left standing outside the school where my child was being held hostage.

Do you?

The fact that Bush is taking the fight to them, rather that Kerry's desire to wait for the fight to come to us is the deciding factor. I personally don't want to be the mother who is left standing outside the school where my child was being held hostage. Do you?

Of course I don't, Dawn, but I don't see that as Kerry's desire.

Dawn, Bush has troops in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. How many more countries can we 'take the fight to'? How many soldiers can we put in Syria? In Iran? In North Korea?

With terrorists in every country on the globe, how is it that killing several hundred bad guys in the Iraq desert is taking the fight TO them? No, Bush has just swelled their ranks. Their ranks in Britian, Spain, America, Saudi Arabia, etc. How can we take the fight TO a nebulous organization that is like water spilling wherever it needs to be, and having the homebase of a nomad?

What can I say? I don't see the argument being made for Bush's plan as the way to go.

The fact that Bush is taking the fight to them, rather that Kerry's desire to wait for the fight to come to us is the deciding factor. I personally don't want to be the mother who is left standing outside the school where my child was being held hostage.

Do you?

As a matter of fact, I do. (Aside from the fact that that's a false dichotomy.) I have far more faith in my ability to fight terrorists alone than in Bush's ability to fight them with the entire U.S. government at his disposal. George Bush, Jr. didn't thwart the terrorists on Flight 93, nor did he prevent Richard Reid from boarding an airliner a year later. He just made speeches after the fact.

Funny.

"Bush is taking the fight to them."

Um, how is the invasion of the WRONG country helping with that?

If Bush were actually, "taking the fight to them", Afghanistan would be a tad more secure.

Pakistan would be a charred parking lot.

Saudi Arabia would be a sand trap for Halliburton's corporate golf course.

And we would have invaded Florida.

It's obvious that Bush picked Iraq because it was the only "enemy" of the US where he didn't have friends and family on the Board of Directors.

PS: He does now, btw. (See Halliburton/no-bid contracts)

Bottom line: A vote for Bush is a vote for criminals, and a threat to your children's future.

JOHN KERRY, 9/3/04:

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and even my fitness to serve as commander in chief.

Here is my answer to them: I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and who misled America into Iraq.

Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty:

Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation.

Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation.

Letting 45 million Americans go without health care makes you unfit to lead this nation.

Letting the Saudi royal family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation.

Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit.

That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it's not going to change. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I believe it's time to set a new course for America."

Yesterday's terrorist bombing in Jakarta is another refutation of the right-wing party line that "Bush is taking the fight to them."

"Them" were not in Iraq.