What amazes me is that for months Kerry has been endorsed by the communist party here in the U.S. Check out cpusa.org. So far: Radical Muslims, the French, communists, Usama bin Laden, the PLO all endorse the hollow man. Remember the old adage, Birds of a Feather...?

From
http://www.randomhouse.com/knopf/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0375409017&view=authdesk :

"Osama
The Making of a Terrorist"
Written by Jonathan Randal

3 reasons why Osama is happy with the Bush administration's war in Iraq:

1. The ideology-driven war dreamed up by Bush's neoconservative advisors allows foreign jihadi terrorists to blend in with a legitimate nationalist
resistance movement against a western military occupation. That's hard to beat for no cost piggybacking.

2. Participating in the Iraqi resistance to the United States allows the jihadis a foothold in the very heart of the Middle East. Iraq is rich in water as well as oil and is right next door to Osama's birthplace, Saudi Arabia, which remains his principal target.

3. The presence of foreign jihadis may not please many Iraqis, but in the rest of the Arab and wider Muslim worlds they are seen as hurting the world's only
superpower.

Interesting, but highly doubtful, Henry. A friend of mine put Osama's recent video into perspective:

I know why Osama released this video. He has to quell a division in his organization. There's a power struggle and he needed this video out to thumb his nose at Bush, in order to try and solidify his base.

Osama is dead if he can't convince whoever is harboring him that he still retains control of Al Qaeda. Without Al Qaeda, Osama is useless... even as a figure head he'd be useless.

If Bush wins, Osama is screwed, and very likely he'll be handed over to us or silently killed. If Kerry wins, Osama wins and we'll probably see quick and rapid cleaning house in Al Qaeda of a few top leaders who thought they could take over with Osama out of the way. Unlike Osama, the operatives who want to take control of Al Qaeda are not so much power hungry as they are fanatical. We'll see an immediate rise in violence if Kerry wins and the coup within Al Qaeda succeeds.

This is a diabolical game of realpolitik and Osama is in trouble. He only has the card of fear to play, and he's got one hell of a bluffing face.

[If Bush wins, Osama is screwed, and very likely he'll be handed over to us or silently killed. If Kerry wins, Osama wins and we'll probably see quick and rapid cleaning house in Al Qaeda of a few top leaders who thought they could take over with Osama out of the way.]

Please explain this to me, Todd, because I'm not seeing you give any reasons as to why Osama is screwed if Bush wins, and why Osama wins if Kerry wins. I'm not getting what your reasoning is.

It's likely that there's an internal power struggle within al Qaeda. Osama has forced Bush to focus attention on the Middle East. Having Kerry in power will draw attention from the Middle East and focus more internally on domestic issues until there's another terrorist attack. It was an interesting point my friend made.

Apologies for thinking you were the one who made the point, Todd. Also, responding sometime to what I've written on your site would be greatly appreciated.

I'm still not getting the point of your friend's comments.

[Unlike Osama, the operatives who want to take control of Al Qaeda are not so much power hungry as they are fanatical. We'll see an immediate rise in violence if Kerry wins and the coup within Al Qaeda succeeds.]

This is what confuses me. Didn't your friend say that Bush winning = bin Laden being killed/handed over and replaced with more fanatical people? So why will violence rise if Kerry wins? If he didn't mean that, then what did he mean? Bush winning = bin Laden being killed/handed over and not replaced with more fanatical people? How would a Bush victory on Election Day ensure that not only would bin Laden be dealt with swiftly, but his possible successors would not rise to power?

We cannot be worried about possible successors to Osama. We have to worry about Osama right now, and we'll deal with other problems as they come along. But let me tell you, if we kill Osama and make a spectacle of it, it sure will serve as a warning to whomever thinks they can succeed him. Osama and other terrorists have denounced Bush, and other still have said they favor Kerry. It's not something the right is making up. It's verifiable truth. I just know that I would never vote for a candidate who is supported by known vicious murderers. Period.

Don't you think it's kinda possible that bin Laden favors Bush in office, but denounces him in order to try to keep him from being defeated?

You are giving Bin Laden more credit than he deserves; why would he prefer Bush when Kerry has made it abundantly clear that he would seek withdrawal from Iraq asap. Bush, however, has made it clear he intends to finish the job.

You made no sense there, Dee. You said "Kerry has made it abundandly clear that he would seek withdrawal from Iraq asap." Unless I'm mistaking my acronyms, 'asap' means 'as soon as possible.' That doesn't mean right away. Kerry's Iraq plan allows for troops to hopefully start leaving the country within six months of his being elected. That doesn't mean all troops are going to jump on a plane and leave right then and there. And Kerry has said in no uncertain terms that when something's broke, you have to fix it. He isn't fool enough to think we can just leave Iraq the way it is. Don't pretend that that's what Kerry believes, because it simply isn't true. If bin Laden feels that Kerry will do a better job fighting terrorism and fixing the mess that is Iraq, he will obviously try to influence things so that Bush will be re-elected. I'm not giving bin Laden too much credit; rather, I'm being logical.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

That's the link to the specifics of Kerry's four-point plan on Iraq. Enjoy.

Something's not broke. This is war. War is not pretty. I really think people forget that we're fighting a war because it's not here at home, and we should be thankful to have a man in office who will do whatever it takes to keep war off of our land, even if it means taking the war to them. War has never been pretty. The war on terror has been fought for going on two years now, where as our biggest wars were at least 5. The Dems are already calling it a quagmire and a mistake, and if you continue to feed people the same lie, they start to believe it. Kerry has jumped on the bandwagon that Teddy K. and our first wish as Democratic Presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and for last year have been saying we're losing the war, it's a mistake, and we should leave right away. It just goes to show that these guys are soft and can't endure through a storm or a low season. When things are not happy like daisies, which will never happen because the media only airs death and destruction as opposed to creation and liberation, they complain that the world is coming to an end. Maybe it's the lib's who live in a fantasy world, where as long as Rebublicans are in power, the world is lost.

I believe that history will prove our President as a heroe, just like they did Reagan. Speaking of which, how do you explain Kerry's actions & comments about Reagan back when Reagan was President, what with Kerry doing everything in his power to make Reagan look like the evil man when Reagan resisted the Russians. Now he's praising the man for the alliances he held in bringing down the Soviet Union. In the same way, President Bush will be thought of one who fought evil when no one else had the guts to do so. A man who knows evil and hate when he sees it, and who made sure that hatred and fanaticism didn't have any kind of hold on future generations, even when it wasn't popular. Think about it.

Oh, and Kerry's four point plan looks a lot like what's going on right now in Iraq under Bush's plan. Just a sidenote.

Restating what I wrote in Todd's blog:

I'm not against doing whatever is needed to protect our country and its citizens. Pre-emptive strikes, if absolutely necessary to keep our people safe, are absolutely necessary, in my opinion. Going after terrorists abroad is, of course, exactly what we should be doing. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending 9/11 never happened is obviously the stupidest thing we could possibly do.

That being said, the problem with Iraq is that it turned out that Iraq was not the greatest threat to the United States at the time we invaded it, and the report that was released a few weeks ago stated that Hussein probably wouldn't obtain nuclear weapons for years. I know I said "probably" there, and no, "probably" doesn't cut it when it comes to national security. But neither does going into Iraq without having a clear exit strategy, a plan to win the peace in a speedy fashion.
The issue here is reassessing the situation as new information comes out. If we had to go into Iraq because there was even just a slight chance that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ready to be used against us, so be it; but we should have invaded the country not only in a speedy fashion, but a smart one. We can't get bogged down in all countries that may have weapons of mass destruction the way we have in Iraq; we'd get stretched too thin and become too vulnerable. While pre-emptive strikes may be necessary, they must be executed properly.
Bush's focus on terrorism is a focus of tunnel-vision proportions. Iraq, pre-invasion, was never a center of terrorism to the extent that it is now. The quicker we secure the peace (bring violence levels down the the most minimal level possible), the safer America is. When the peace is truly secured, we'll be able to shift our attention back to where it should be: catching terrorists and dealing with the threats of nuclear use by other countries, such as Iran and North Korea. And maybe, just maybe, we'll also be able to focus once again on Osama bin Laden.

As for your other comments...

[President Bush will be thought of one who fought evil when no one else had the guts to do so. A man who knows evil and hate when he sees it, and who made sure that hatred and fanaticism didn't have any kind of hold on future generations, even when it wasn't popular.]

How is fighting terrorism "not popular"?? How can you say that "no one else [has] the guts to do so"??

Here's what Pres. Bush said in response to the bin Laden tape:

"Earlier today I was informed of the tape that is now being analyzed by America's intelligence community. Let me make this very clear: Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country. I'm sure Senator Kerry agrees with this. I also want to say to the American people that we're at war with these terrorists and I am confident we will prevail."

"I'm sure Senator Kerry agrees with this." Interesting. I also find it very interesting and helpful how President Bush tells the American people that "we're at war with these terrorists." You see, I hadn't known that until he said it in that speech.

But President Bush was right to say Senator Kerry agrees with him on this issue. Here's what Kerry said in response to the bin Laden tape:

"As Americans, we are absolutely united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. They are barbarians. And I will stop at absolutely nothing to hunt down, capture, or kill the terrorists, wherever they are, whatever it takes. Period."

Those sentiments are pretty much the same; in fact, Senator Kerry's statement is more forceful and to the point. Period.

Moving on... you often use the word "evil" to describe the terrorists, Jon. While I'm definitely not saying that terrorists aren't evil, I'm curious if you'll agree with me that there are definitive reasons as to why people become terrorists, and why people hate America so much? And also, that perhaps if some of these reasons were re-examined, we would be better equipped to combat terrorism? I say this because I have always heard President Bush use the world "evil" and "evil-doers" and the like, but I've never heard him talk about the reasons why people hate America so much. I'm not saying he hasn't, I'm just saying I haven't heard him talk about them.

[Speaking of which, how do you explain Kerry's actions & comments about Reagan back when Reagan was President, what with Kerry doing everything in his power to make Reagan look like the evil man when Reagan resisted the Russians. Now he's praising the man for the alliances he held in bringing down the Soviet Union.]

I don't know anything about Kerry's actions and comments about Reagan when Reagan was President, so I can't explain anything. If you provide me with examples of his actions and comments that made Reagan look like an evil man, I'll comment on them.

[I believe that history will prove our President as a heroe, just like they did Reagan.]

I don't know if history has truly proved Reagan was a hero. All I know is I've heard of plenty of people who strongly, strongly are against Reagan's policies and actions as President. I even heard about such people the week President Reagan passed away.

[Oh, and Kerry's four point plan looks a lot like what's going on right now in Iraq under Bush's plan. Just a sidenote.]

My point in providing a link to Kerry's four-point plan is to show Dee that Kerry doesn't intend to just withdraw immediately from Iraq without securing the peace. That being said, Kerry's plan definitely isn't what's going on right now in Iraq. Kerry isn't stubborn, he isn't unwilling to reassess situations. He brings things to the table that Bush hasn't. His plan may be similar in print to what President Bush has done in Iraq, but in execution, I doubt it will be the same.

And there are things in his plan that I don't think the Bush Administration has/would consider. Such as:

- Give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

- Recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq.

- Use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton.

- Stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. Fire the civilians in the

- Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

Those are just things I'm betting won't happen with President Bush on top for four more years. If anyone has evidence to refute that, I'd love to see it.

In summary...

Iraq is broken because of how it has been handled. No, war isn't pretty; chaos isn't, either. The problems we're having in Iraq now, and we have been having for months, aren't part of the natural process of war. If we had gone into Iraq differently, i.e. with a different exit strategy, a plan to secure the peace, and a better understanding of what post-Saddam Iraq would be like, things wouldn't be going the way they have/are. Iraq should not be considered a focal point on the war on terror; at least, it shouldn't have once we realized there were no WMD to find in the country. Now, the mess that has been made is allowing terrorists to enter the country and continue the chaos. Now, Iraq has become a haven for terrorists.

Holy Mother! I have no idea when I'll be able to read all these comments. Keep them coming though. Makes me feel useful :)

I'm not sure who else we could get involved with in Iraq. France, Germany? They were both bribed with oil-for-food money and promised Saddam Hussein they would not invade Iraq. Besides, I saw some French army rifles on eBay the other day that had never been fired, only dropped once. [sarcasm]. Last time I checked, they practiced pre-emptive surrender, not strike. Anywho, here's some links about John Kerry's opposition to Reagan and his recent comments about him now:

http://www.nationalreview.com/Kerry/Kerry200406090827.asp

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1243897/posts

http://www.thestakesarehigh.org/

Thanks for the links. I'll be sure to check them out and post comments on them here.

What do you think about everything else in my post? How Iraq has been handled and why it is truly a mess? And all the other things, too.

Henry, I'd like to respond to your trying to figure out why terrorists hate us. Can I surmise you learned that in school? It is so very pc to try to 'understand' the terrorists. The fact is, they hate - period. They also want political power and will use any excuse to get it. If you studied the sheer amounts of billions of dollars of foreign aid given by the U.S. to Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabi (where most of the terrorists come from) then how on earth can they have 'an excuse' for terrorism?

Western companies have gone in and helped THEM with oil refineries using OUR technology...and if I hear one more time that it's a war for oil, I'l throw up. If it's for oil, then where's the oil, why are prices still high? It hasn't been for our gain; an advantage yes, but not for oil for us. The ones in control of the oil are not here, but the Saudi's, Iraqi's, etc.

The terrorists are well-funded and certainly not poor. Amazing that if you look at the Middle East over the last millenium, very little has changed. No new technology, people still living in squalor while the mullah's and royal family live in splendor (do a google search of 'millionaire mullahs'-you'll find it enlightening). Most of their technology has been given to them by us. Laws so cruel we can't even relate; honor killings of their women, extremeties cut off for minor offenses, torture. No freedom. They live in the dark ages. Islam has never had a reformation as did Christianity.

Evil is evil. Terrorists are evil. People who kill innocent people (outside of the theatre of war) are purely evil. Terrorists kill to create fear and intimidation. They kill babies, women and children; in fact they hide behind them (ask any soldier coming from Iraq about that).

So, research foreign aid given by the U.S. and contrast that with those greedy Islamic millionaires living off their own people before you start blaming the U.S. for terrorism.

One more thing...most of the weapons found in Iraq were from France, Germany and Russia. Any wonder they didn't want to get involved? Sadaam also owed them all BIG time and they knew once he was deposed they'd never get their money. Not to mention, as Jon did, the oil-for-food scandal. Huge rip off.

Before responding to that (I think it's unwise to just go with the "evil is evil" line without trying to figure out why they're evil in the first place), I'm wondering, Dee, if you'll now acknowledge that Sen. Kerry has a plan for Iraq and does want to win the peace there rather than just jump ship? And therefore that's not a reason bin Laden would prefer Bush?

Evil is simply the absence of good (the ultimate good being God), and since the beginning of man's existence there has always been a struggle between good and evil. We have been given the free will to choose between the two, and terrorists choose evil.

I do not believe Kerry has a plan for Iraq. Kerry has been on both sides of this issue for too long to convince me he has the core values that could withstand harsh scrutiny from his constituents (especially the anti-war crowd of which he is one) and especially other nations. (He 'protests too much' about not getting global permission.)

Thus far, Kerry says what he thinks people want to hear. He said over and over for weeks on end that he has a "plan", but his plan is to train Iraqi's "quicker"--how on earth does one do that???? You cannot speed up a training period (or bend learning curves) unless you are willing to accept inferior results.

Sorry, Henry, but Kerry is a hollow man to me. His 20-year lackluster record in the senate, using his paltry four months in the Vietnam war as a platform (after trashing his fellow vets to smithereens in '71), tells me he is a grand opportunist.

Henry, I don't know what site you commented on, but it sure wasn't mine.

Todd, Henry posts as "J" on your site.

[(He 'protests too much' about not getting global permission.)]

I invite you to read what Senator Kerry said in the first debate. There's nothing about permission, but there is a lot about maintaining credibility -- with our own people, and people throughout the world. There's a big difference.

[Sen. Kerry: No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.]