[dandelion]

Andrew's is 100% right in this case - this war will be what Vietnam SHOULD have been.

The protesters of the 1960's us a priceless gift. We learned from their example. Never again will we allow such a reprobate, self-adulating group of pigs to rule this country again...

Their day is over.

[Ichneumon]

Never happen -- Kerry would lose his liberal base if he came out as a hawk.

[ScaniaBoy]

Again, when asked last week what his own policy would be, he responded: “Right now what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I’m not the president and I didn’t create this mess so I don’t want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven’t made.” That’s a non-answer.

No, that's not a non-answer. That is a non-sentence, pure incoherency. In all likelihood it reflects the coherency of his thoughts as well. God help us if this man is elected president.

[risk]

Perhaps A.S. can abandon President Bush now because he disagrees with his support for the marriage amendment more than he supports the war on terror?

[HateBill]

After all, what lies ahead in Iraq is not a very Republican project. It’s classic nation-building — the kind of thing that Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore once favoured and Bush once resolutely opposed.

This is ridiculous. President Bush opposed "nation building" when there were no U.S. interests involved. If Sullivan wants to make the case that there are no U.S. interests involved in eradicating state-sponsored terrorism (unless Sullivan wishes to say Saddam did *not* engage in any state-sponsored terrorism?) I'd like to hear it, especially after September 11.

[RobFromGa]

So let me suggest one. It would go something like this: “Thank you, Mr President, for your leadership in difficult times. You took some tough decisions in good faith...

He lost me here, I can't imagine Kerry ever saying this, the rest of it is even more impossible. Kerry has no plan that will be accepted by his lunatic admirers, that will still attract undecideds, and certainly not ones that will comfort proponents of Bush's tough responses in the War on Terror.

That is why the stakes in this election are so high-- those of us who support American leadership and further pre-emption of the Terrorists know that re-electing President Buch may be our only chance to save America the pain of a day that dwarfs 9-11 and the possibility of fighting a major war against uncivilized madmen ON OUR HOMELAND.

Those that support Kerry are not concerned about this, they are so blinded by power that this is a price I guess they are either willing to pay, or they don't believe that we are in a War on Terror.

I would like to hear Kerry explain what exactly he feels is the scope of the War on terror--
Is he in a mop-up so we can get on with regular life mode? or
Does he recognize that we are in the early middle of it and need to finish the job the right way so we don't have to start over in five, ten, twelve years?

His candid answer to that question is urgently needed for the American people to make an informed decision. It is the question that this generation must answer and answer correctly.

[McGavin999]

“Thank you, Mr President, for your leadership in difficult times. You took some tough decisions in good faith. I disagree with you but I will not let our troops down and I will not abandon Iraq. But you, Mr President, are now part of the problem.

“You are too polarising a figure to bring real peace to Iraq and have bungled the post-liberation too badly. Your failure to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has undermined your credibility as a war leader. You are too unpopular to allow European governments and the United Nations to co-operate in the war.

Oh please, let him say something exactly like that. LOL