War in Iraq

I voted for Bush, but I am hardly an unquestioning acolyte.Nevertheless, had Al Gore prevailed, Joe Lieberman would be President now. Gore's current personality decompensation is bad enough. After 9/11, had he been President, he would have had a florid nervous breakdown and had to resign as unable to perform the duties of the office.I think Kerry's personality is far more stable, but I lack confidence in his ability to be effective. He seems to be reprising Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign.I reamin firmly convinced that the elements of Islamic terror (by no means all of Islam) must be confronted and defeated, and cannot be appeased or wished away. Whether Iraq was a sound theater of this conflict is open to debate, and I suspect history will have to be the judge. No war is trouble-free.

This is like arguing moral equivalence between the police and the Mafia because both have automatic weapons. IOW, it makes no sense. Did it happen when the Shia had an uprising ? Did it happen when the Kurds had an uprising ? Both brutally crushed by Saddam, including use of WMDs he did in fact have at the time.No, it didn't happen. The UN talked, but took no action.

So you'd rather see Americans harmed and terrorists on the loose than Bush re-elected ? Why would the capture of OBL be a bad thing? You'd rather we let him run around until Kerry can take the credit ?

If you think Kerry means a more effective war on terror, please tell me why. Bush has certainly made mistakes. However, I've yet to see any evidence that Kerry's approach would be more effective.We've tried the UN, and involving the French. It didn't work.

Are you serious? Otherwise normal, peaceful people are becoming beheading murderers because they feel excluded by Bush ? This is like saying that Hitler gassed Jews because of Churchills' hostility towards him.The terroriists become terrorists for the same reasons the SS became SS. Naivete and questionable moral equivalence aside, they still want us dead.In the final analysis, the head of a soverign state must take whatever action is needed to defend the citizens of that state. Unilaterally if necessary.It is one thing to constructively criticize Bush's approach and offer alternatives. This is a legitimate part of democracy.But to suggest that our enemies will make nice if we're just nicer to them is suicidally naive.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you hold to such theories of moral equivalence, you have forfeited any rational basis for criticizing the actions of anyone, including Bush. he's just doing what comes natural to him. Who are you to object ?

Sometimes life forces one to choose the less suboptimal of two suboptimal choices. One could always not vote, I suppose.As to Bush not accepting evolution. This is disappointing, but I fail to see the relevance for his fitness to serve as President. Carter accepted evolution, and was arguablly the best educated and most intelligent of the post WW2 presidents. He was also a miserable failiure at the job.

N-th parties do exist (Greens, Libertarians, US Taxpayers) but haven't attracted wide support. Perhaps this is because they tend to represent the extremes on either end.Most people who long for a third party seem to want something centrist. Not many third party candidates fit this (Anderson in 1980 and arguably Perot in 1992 would be the closest I can think of ).Myself, I'd prefer McCain, Powell or Giuliani as Republican Predidential candidates. But it's Bush, or Kerry, this time around.I predict Kerry will lose unless he starts running a more optimistic campaign, and jettisons Michael Moore the way Clinton did Sister Souljah in 1992.I still await coherent arguments why Kerry is the better choice (none of this puerile "Bush sux" business).

If you're alluding to Kerry's military experience, yes, he's seen combat, Bush didn't. Though flying F-102s was far from risk-free, they had a pretty high attrition rate in normal operations. I looked at Kerry's FITREPS online and the picture that emerges is that of a competent junior officer with combat experience. Nothing more (or less) than that. I suspect Bush would have done as well if deployed.As to Bush being inarticulate, this is painfully obvious. But does it correlate with low intelligence? Not necessarily. I've known many technicians of very few words who were uncanny in their technical brilliance.As to nuanced thinking; this has its value, in places such as the faculty lounge, or on these boards, or debating arcana of non-critical policy. But sometimes clear, decisive action, often in the face of conflicting or incomplete information, is what is needed. It is possible to nuance oneself into paralysis in such cases.Is Kerry capable of decisive action? The combat experience suggests he is. So why is his Iraq alternative policy so vague and muddled ? "We'll try the UN" just doesn't cut it. They are the very antithesis of decisive action, and often operating contrary to American interests. Yes, looking out for American interests is part of the President's job.Finally, it is one thing to state that "there are problems". In fact, its trivially obvious. How one is going to adress those problems is what's really at issue. Exaggerating them is not helpful, either. I hear Bush compared to Hoover, and this is laughable. We don't have lines at soup kitchens and 33% unemployment.I'm still an "undecided voter" (but leaning Bush as you might surmise). But the venom of the far Left does not appeal, any more than the Falwell wing of the Republicans does.