I fear for the future of this country when 1,000+ dead in a country of 290 million is considered too high a price to pay for what our ancestors willingly sacrificed everything for.

The debates proved to me that Kerry will be acceptable, if passive, in security matters. So I won't even bother to dissuade you from voting for him. I'm far more dissapointed that our capacity for sacrifice to nobel ends is practically non-existent today. We'll cheerfully help the world if it doesn't cost us, the richest and most capable country in the history of the world, anything or cause any deaths.

I worry about Kerry's decision-making process after reading this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28106-2004Oct12.html

Kevin

Having been born and raised in MA, worked in the MA state legislature, and being an ABD in IR who studies congressional-executive relations in security policy, I am very leery of a Kerry presidency and what it would mean for foreign affiars.

First, Kerry has been a poor senator in MA. He was vulnerable to Bill Weld because Weld was seen as more reliable and concerned about the issues facing MA and local democrats. In my job in the Legislature, I would never call Kerry up even though he was our Senator. We would call the congressman or Senator Kennedy, who both, at a minimum, returned our calls. With Kerry, you were unlikely to even get a return call from his office. The same reputation stuck with him on constituent affairs. Its the reason he earned the nickname "Live Shot." If there was a camera, Kerry would be there. If not, good luck.

In terms of foreign policy, Kerry talks his fp experience and mastery. Yet, in my research, with the exception of a procedural manuever to outflank Jesse Helms, he has been nearly invisible. He casts the required vote, but thats it.

Lastly, a local columnist/talk show host said last year "I look forward to the next 11 months as the nations gets to know John Kerry like we know John Kerry." I fear Kerry has been able to get by on anti Bush sentiment to this point and, if he is elected, we are going to regret it sooner and later.

At some point, the Bush Administration has to be held to account for woeful incompentence in Iraq. Given that noone has been fired for massive intelligence failures and abysmal planning in post-war Iraq, the only choice those of us who supported the war have is to fire this President.

Josh:

Don't count on it. BC04 is going to be
re-elected overwhemingly. They are starting
to pull away via tracking polls.

The House and Senate will be getting even
more Republican on Nov. 2.

So the President will not be held accountable
for his mistakes. It will be our duty as
Americans to fully support the winner of the
Election, no matter who it is.

May God Bless the United States of America!

Dan, you write, "Bill Clinton -- who epitomizes the kind of diplomatic style Kerry could only hope to achieve -- invested a fair amount of diplomatic capital on both of these flash points, during a time when America's prestige was greater than today -- and in the end achieved very little of consequence."

I want to agree with the crux of what you're saying, but I wince when you say Clinton achieved "very little of consequence" on foreign affairs. Yes, we had many problems that were not solved when Clinton was behind the foreign policy wheel, but I think it's important to remember the tremendous outpouring of support for this nation after 9/11. We had everyone on our side, and should have used the opportunity even harder than Bush did to strengthen international institutions and relations.

At the very least, I want to throw out the idea of a significant relationship between Clinton's exhaustive style + substance foreign policy and foreign support for the US following 9/11. I could be way off, but I feel like I'm looking for my car keys while the US engenders real, absolute hatred abroad.

I'm not that smart to be able to convince you otherwise, but I will say that I value your views and that over the last year or so this blog among others has helped me solidify my support for Bush and opposition to Kerry.
Your rising p-value seems counterintuitive to me.

Foreign policy is critically important. But our ability to project power around the world depends entirely on our economic engine.

and running a $400+ BILLION dollar deficit is a very good way to cripple our power down the road. this deficit is, simply, unsustainable.

since the house and senate are very likely to stay R, this country needs a D president to create divided government and stop the runaway federal spending.

both parties, in modern times, have shown themselves to be utterly irresponsible when given unified control. we must, WE MUST return to fiscal discipline.

and the debates made perfectly clear that Bush has no interest in cutting spending or raising taxes. and his party won't make him.

a R legislature will not pass such fiscally irresponsible budgets to give to a D president.

Francis

Matthew Ryan has a point, but it's not the one he intended to make.

Bush's incompetence at execution isn't just some bloodless managerial failure, with the stakes measured in bad quarterly profit/loss ratios.

Bush's incompetence at execution has killed nearly 1100 American soldiers (so far), tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and maimed a few tens of thousands more of both.

War isn't a game of manliness. It isn't a game of chicken. It isn't a way to "send a signal" of how "resolved" we are.

War is real. War kills people. War orphans and widows people. War blights lives with severe disabilities and mental trauma.

War is an obscenity. It's butchery. There's no way around it. That's why war is, has to be, a last resort: something you do only when you absolutely must, and only when everything else has failed.

The consequences of a botched war, a carelessly begun and planned war, are unendurable.

And unforgiveable.

Bush spent our nation's blood cheaply and callously - because it wasn't his.

For that alone, the man should be tossed out of office.

First, Kerry has been a poor senator in MA. He was vulnerable to Bill Weld because Weld was seen as more reliable and concerned about the issues facing MA and local democrats.

That's an interesting way of spinning the fact that Kerry WON the 1996 Senate race in Massachusetts against an immensely popular moderate Republican governor. In fact, he won 52 % to 45 % (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/MA00senate.html), which is actually quite impressive given that Weld was (re-)elected governor in 1994 with a whopping 71 % of the vote and that Kerry had been behind in the polls.

So, yeah, the people of Massachusetts must really hate Kerry - so much so that they keep sending him back to Washington (I guess that's also a form of punishment). Or maybe they really wanted to keep Weld as governor. But it can't possibly have been because they liked Kerry. Right.

Oh, and your quote from the "local columnist/talk show host" - got any links to that? The literal quote you gave isn't found by Google. Not that I doubt someone said something along those lines (and probably worse) - after all, the Boston Herald has been pretty firmly on the Republican side for quite a while. But I have seen quite a few unattributed quotes like this by people claiming that the locals in Boston don't like Kerry.

Of course, one might then equally point to the endorsement of John Kerry by the (admittedly insignificant) Lone-Star Iconoclast of Crawford, TX - http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm. It's a surprisingly well written and well argued editorial...

I think that the best reason to vote for Kerry is that it will lead to congress not doing much, and that can only be good because the current makeup of congress is such that congress only accomplishes things in extremes, and almost invariably screws up whatever they're working on.

BC04 is going to be
re-elected overwhemingly. They are starting
to pull away via tracking polls.

Not at all clear. The polls have been all over the map. And they're not going to be re-elected overwhemlingly, if they're relected it will be by a narrow margin. Ditto for Kerry.

In any case, your vote is indepdendent of who you think is going to win. I think Dan is right. So at least, as a Kerry supporter, we've got the college professor Iraq war supporter-turned-disillusioned social liberal foreign policy hawk blogger demographic down !!

To answer the questions.

***
That's an interesting way of spinning the fact that Kerry WON the 1996 Senate race in Massachusetts against an immensely popular moderate Republican governor. In fact, he won 52 % to 45 % (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/MA00senate.html), which is actually quite impressive given that Weld was (re-)elected governor in 1994 with a whopping 71 % of the vote and that Kerry had been behind in the polls.
***

Kerry won, but should not have even been challenged. There were a significant number of Democrats who supported Weld or at least witheld support of Kerry till very late in the election. It was a pretty powerful message to Kerry that people were unhappy.

Kerry also won because of some strange miscues by Weld. Down the stretch, Weld morphed (as much as he could) into a right wing republican. He seemed to be running on guns taxes and the death penalty down the stretch and it cost him.

Kerry also did really well in the debates. They are excellent watching if you can still find them.

Kerry was further served by 1) Bill Weld's popularity - as he was able to argue that Bill Weld was such a good governer that he should remain one and 2) the presistent fear in MA of one party government - people liked Weld and were leery of what the future would bring if he headed to Washignton. This also played a key role.

In the end though, I think the election was decided by the overwhelming dominance of the democrat party in MA. They control the legislature, the congressional delegation (0 repubs), and every other aspect of MA politics except hte governor. We have elected some pretty poor republican governors as a check on democrat dominance.

The quote was from Howie Carr. He certainly doesnt like Kerry and I would imagine fewi n his regular audience do. Personally, I had far warmer feelings for the Duke than I do for Kerry. Howie Carr also coined the J.F.K - just for kerry moniker as well.

See, I'm the other way around. I'd rather have somebody that fumbles now and then, but at least knows the game they're playing. Can you really make good decisions, regardless of your process for doing so, when you don't understand the problem you're facing?

The Carter commeth.

I think foreign policy is a wonderful litmus test. But is "a good decision-making process" one?

Dan:

What about Social Security and Medicare? When Kerry was asked about it in the debate, he essentially said, "It's not a problem. 10 years from now, we'll look at it again, and if it still looks like there will be a problem, we'll have a commission look into it."

Doesn't that worry you?

Oh Adam, I doubt it. I have three words in response to that...

Defense Secretary McCain.

Dan,

I respect your current p-value. Given your invitation though, I'll try to offer a little persuasion.

I understand the fear that a second administration may be taken as a validation of bad policy decisions. However, I think that is unlikely. I think most people, and the president especially view this election not as a referendum on the policy decisions, but on the foreign policy instincts.

And that is why I think those supporting the President (including myself) are so concerned about a Kerry victory. Bush has set himself as representing a pre-emptive instinct and protect the homeland. Kerry's policy seems to highlight a take no action approach.

In effect Bush's policy could be considered to be something like this...If the risk and rewards of doing nothing, given the intelligence (including the risk of flaws in the intelligence), is worse than the reasonable calculation of the risk and reward of taking Action A, Action A should be taken. Assuming of course that mutually exclusive (given resource limitations) Actions B or C do not offer greater benefits for less costs. [I could go more into this, if you'd like me to feel free to e-mail me or reply in the comments.]

Kerry's doctrine seems to be best described by a do-nothing approach unless (a) we get the green light from a variety of non-U.S. actors, including those who may or may not have adverse interests in the U.S. in taking the action, and (b) the threat is so imminent as to be completely unavoidable.

Personally, Kerry's position is not untenable in a world were the greatest concern is other state actors and you are by far and away the strongest state. However, in a world where a few independent actors can inflect substantial damages than I believe the do-nothing choice carries greater risks, risks that Kerry seems to willfilly ignore.

All in all though, this is key, repudiating Bush, will not be seen as repudiating Bush's policy implentation. It will be seen as repudiating the idea that the government should act if it believes military action is in the best interest of the citizenry. I believe repudiating that doctrine would be far more damaging to the US long-term than any other thing.

As to actual policy execution, I think most Bush supporters recognize that you can set the rudder but you cannot change the waves and wind. A Kerry administration would likely bring in Cabinet members who had a fair foreign policy for the 90s, but even during the 90s the threat that both Iran and NK posed grew, and made so that action against those axis members became more difficult (Actions B & C became more costly than A as a result of that inaction).

As to accountability/responsibility, I cannot argue with the personal belief that Rumsfeld should have resigned. However, I think the most likely case is that the President believes he has surrounded himself with the best people, and though those people have had failings the abilities they bring are highly valued by the President.

Well, at this point, I'm getting winded. I would be honored to carry on this discussion if it useful. However, if it is not, that is fair, and I wish you the best in coming to your decision.

Why bother? Prof. Drezner is drinking the "Kerry can be strong" kool-aid, and nothing anyone says will dissuade him. But just for the record:

1) Your complaints about execution are good but almost beside the point. No war has ever gone according to plan. Bush has made far fewer mistakes to date than Lincoln did during the first 3 years of the Civil War. In any event, before you can even ask who would do a better job, you have to be convinced that the candidates even understand the question.

2) Judging from the Bai article and Kerry's long record in the Senate, I don't know how you can conclude that Kerry gets it. His prescriptions are pure 9/10 - a little diplomacy, some sharing of intelligence, a few prosecutions, some mild sabre-rattling (maybe toss a cruise missle into some tents somewhere, but God forbid, no real use of military force except to repel an invasion of the continental US) - how is this any different than the bi-partisan policy towards the Islamicists that gave us 9/11? Sen. Kerry himself admits that 9/11 did not cause any substantial change in his policy views. In my view, that renders completely irrelevant any analysis of whether he could or might be more or less effective in prosecuting the war against the jihadists.

Kerry was further served by 1) Bill Weld's popularity

I note that the fact that I had already (pre-emptively) made fun of the idea that people voted for Kerry because they wanted to keep Weld as governor did not stop you from laying out that idea in all seriousness.

You guys really are masters at re-interpreting reality. Up is down, left is right, a victory is a loss and so on...

(But if we follow your logic: Ever wondered why the good people of Texas didn't vote for Kerry in 2000? Was it because they wanted to rid themselves of their current, incompetent governor?)

And as for Howie Carr - so I was right in speculating that your quote came from a highly partisan Boston Herald columnist. Someone who's been engaged in spreading negative rumors about Kerry's character that are mostly based on anecdotal hearsay.

(I'm sure nobody in Texas - except for those wacky Lone-Star Iconoclast editors, of course - would have anything bad to say about George Bush. The DUI arrests - who cares?! But, hey, Kerry cut in line in front of someone in Boston - or at least someone called Howie Carr to tell him about this. Now THAT's a reason not to vote for Kerry. Right.)

If Bush gets re-elected, he and his team will view it as a vindication for all of their policy decisions to date. Whatever groupthink occurred in the first term would pale besides the groupthink that would dominate the second term.

You terrify me, especially since the latest trend in the polls indicates a Bush win.
But when I recall that despite his narrow and dubious margin of victory in 2000, Bush governed in a way more satisfying to the evangelical right than the moderate center, I fear you're quite right. The more cogent and powerful the criticisms, the stronger the impulse to take the election victory as a reason to ignore them.

Interesting to note that it seems that the reason Kerry's victory in the last debate is being undercut goes, as Andrew Sullivan has made clear, to the tenacious bigotry of our attitudes towards--if I may use such a nasty word--lesbians.

Bush has made far fewer mistakes to date than Lincoln did during the first 3 years of the Civil War.

That's because Bush doesn't make mistakes. Period.

I wouldn't be so sure Kerry will be such a dove. As Gene Healy mentioned, "I'm pretty sure God isn't going to tell John Kerry to bomb anyone, but Kerry might end up being even more hawkish than Bush anyway, having more to prove," a la LBJ.

Not that anyone should want to emulate LBJ. Indeed, Bush shows some disturbing parallels, increasing both domestic and defense spending without raising taxes while there was an oil shock -- that was the recipe for that ghastly inflation of the 70s. Ironically, the "jobless recovery" seems to be the only thing saving Bush this time.

And per that excellent WaPo article that Kevin posted, I actually don't think paralysis of analysis will be an issue. There are hardly any situations where the President needs to make a very quick decision on his feet (or else Bush wouldn't have had time to finish reading "My Pet Goat"). And anyway, I figure it's harder for an enemy to predict and manipulate a wartime leader with constantly shifting and adapting strategies.

When an administration proposes a plan that would drive millions of higher-wage jobs down to near the minimum wage, I would think that would be an instant disqualifier. See The Big Show on the Border. That's a tangible example of exactly how this administration fails to think through the consequences of their actions.

I'm to the right of center. I somewhat supported the Iraq war.

However, I've made up my mind that President Kerry is infinitely better than four more years of the same.

Kerry will have divided government. He will be forced to work with the Republicans. And, he will probably be forced to show that he isn't weak. He might be even more of a hawk than Bush in some ways.

The Republicans will be able to keep Kerry in check, and will do so free of "compassionate conservatism."

I might be moved to vote for Kerry, if only I thought he had any character.

And if only he weren't a Democrat. When I look at that once-great party, I see Clinton (the Playboy President), Mrs Clinton, Jimmy Carter (a nice old man, but absolutely clueless about world affairs), Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Big Al Sharpton, Wesley Clark, Madeline Albright (and more names from the Convention), ...

Then there are their staunch supporters: Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand,....

None of these people (in either group) are capable of running a village council reliably, let alone the country.

There are major problems on the home front: the insecure Mexican border, Social Security, Medicare, but this time, the focus has to be on the foreign front.

(I don't put much stock in Woodward's interpretation of things.)

I go with Zell Miller. We have to put our trust in someone who has the will to do what's necessary to make things safer. If anything, I fault the administration for not doing more.

But I have no doubt that Kerry will do less, not more.

I remember an incident during the Clinton years, where a soldier was court-martialed for not wearing a UN helmet in a formation. For one guy, at least, principle was worth more than convenience. I believe that if Kerry starts running things, we'll see more UN uniforms on American troops. I really don't want to see that.

Then there's this ridiculous Democratic notion that international observers come in and watch our election process. Where are they going to get them? Argentina? We're big kids now, and perfectly capable of muddling through our own elections - flawed as the process is - without help from people for whom the concept of democracy is still a new, untested, and somewhat suspect thing.

It's also true that our election process would be less flawed if it weren't for the antics of people like George Soros (for whom the campaign contribution rules are not a problem) and Michael Moore (who seems to think it's OK to trade votes for underwear). Lastly, but certainly not the last attempt, is this brazen attempt by the UK Guardian to solicit votes in Ohio.

Is there nothing the Democrats will stoop to to weasel their way into power?

(About Tenet: Clinton appointee, who would most certainly have been fired by Clinton if he had been appointed by Bush Sr.)

From Kerry's plan on how to deal with Iraq it doesn't sound like there is a whole lot of tremendous difference. Both advance that elections must be held in January and that Iraqi troops must be trained to take over security of the country. Other issues, like Kerry's need to ask other countries to participate, I think are misguided and nieve.

I, however, agree with Bush's overall foreign policy for the same reason that Joel B. (above) does. Bush seems like a visionary type of leader, whereas Kerry is acting like he will be more of a micro-manager in the foreign policy area.

But there are other issues in this election that have varying weights of importance. The number one other issue to think about is judicial appointments. Some of the Supreme Court justices have been holding on through the first Bush term waiting to see if it was safe to retire after 2004, and they may not hold on no matter who gets elected now. Whoever we elect will be picking a court justice or two, and I really haven't heard a lot of discussion on this point. My impression here is that Bush says he will appoint strict constructionists, but Kerry's only statement is that he won't appoint any judge who will overturn any part of Roe v. Wade. We need more discussion here.

Kerry is supposed to be more solid on domestic issues, but in listening to him the other night during the last debate, he sounded more wishy washy on those subjects than he did on the war in the first debate (not flip flopping; wishy washy). His health plan, while not as Orwellian scary as Bush makes it out to be, is still a larger government expansion than Bush has in mind. And outsourcing? Come on.

Pretty much the best thing you can say about Kerry is what has been said above, that with a Republican House and Senate the government will be stagnant and slightly better for the economy.
I would rather have Bush in there and somehow convince him to back off the large government programs.

"I remember an incident during the Clinton years, where a soldier was court-martialed for not wearing a UN helmet in a formation. For one guy, at least, principle was worth more than convenience."

And Bush gave us Abu Ghraib, among other military derelictions of principle.

Your point?

Daniel,
I agree with most of the points you made. The one I want to add - and I find it an essential one - is that I believe (from his own statements) that Kerry does not believe we should have an offensive strategy in the war. He talks defense, not offense, mostly because offensive is, well, offensive (to our potential allies, whether it's Europe or other Arab countries).
No, I don't think Kerry will just withdraw from Iraq. I'll even grant that his administration may manage Iraq competently (I put the odds of that at 30% - your numbers may differ). But his instincts are against opening any new fronts, taking any new risks, and offending any new countries or constituencies. We'd be going defensive in the war. I consider that bad; I'm not sure where you stand on that.
So here's the break, then, as simple as I can make it, granting your premise that Bush is bad at execution (which I don't believe, but you do): Would you rather vote for bad execution of a good plan, or good execution of a bad plan?
That's not a trick question. It's a genuine dilemma, one that many people face who *want* to vote for Bush. (It's not mine, because my evaluation of Bush's competence is much higher than yours. But I don't think there's much point of arguing that one.) Bush definitely represents higher risk than Kerry, because he'll try to *do* things that may go wrong. Kerry's lower risk, because he'll be defensive on purpose and by instinct, and won't be able to get much done domestically (if Congress stays republican - I assume you'd vote Kerry + Republican congress to keep the stalemate, right?)
I do note that you're talking yourself into voting against Bush, not for Kerry. You're going to vote for stagnant government (your words) in a time of War. Your position is then, as best as I can decipher, that a stagnant government and four years of defensive (but perhaps competent) management of the War is preferable to a re-invigorated Bush administration going off and widening (perhaps incompetently) the war.
If that's your break, I think you should vote for Kerry.
It's not, as you can probably tell, mine.
Cheers
-- perry

"See, I'm the other way around. I'd rather have somebody that fumbles now and then, but at least knows the game they're playing. Can you really make good decisions, regardless of your process for doing so, when you don't understand the problem you're facing?"

I'm not sure whether I read it here or not, but I saw someone mention that the fundamental difference in foriegn policy with regard to the WoT between Bush and Kerry is that Bush sees nations and their governments as key actors, and prefers to go after them. Kerry, on the other hand, sees the key actors as being the terrorist organizations themselves.

Personally, I see that as a huge issue with Bush. Kerry's viewpoint on that is certainly incomplete, but in my opinion less dangerous, because when you are militarily neglecting action against state sponsors of terror, you have other means at your disposal for dealing with them. Terrorist organizations, however, do not respond to diplomatic pressure at all. I think the military might (among other things) needs to be focused very tightly on rooting these people out and taking them out of the game, so to speak, rather than toppling corrupt and evil regimes at the expense of your attention to these groups.

I also think Bush's outlook leads to an increased military presence in the middle east (coughcoughSYRIAcoughIRANcough). And what with me being prime draft age and all, I'm not a fan.

As an aside, don't give me that BS about "but they voted against the draft". Don't care. A common sense interpretation of the facts says we need more troops already, and if we're going into Syria and Iran, we're going to need a hell of a lot more. And to be quite frank, I burn easily.

The 'devil you dont know' faction seems to be gaining steam. I'm at a loss for the logic behind it. The amount of attributes not remotely found in his record you must project onto Kerry to consider him remotely hawkish is astounding. If you want to vote for Kerry, fine. But you should go in open eyed. I dont want to hear a year from now that Kerry wasnt what he advertised himself to be in foriegn policy. If Kerry gets elected and ends up being the next Carter or Chamberlain, 'i told you so' isnt going to be remotely comforting. I urge everyone in that ballot booth, the second before you punch a name, think about the man that voted against Gulf War 1. Thats all I ask.

A Case Against Kerry

Proposition for Dan: The desire to fire Bush for post war incompetence is no reason to elect someone who would choose not to fight at all.

On the international front, Kerry's problem is not that he has excessive faith in diplomacy, it is that he doesn't understand the nature of diplomacy at all. Through all of the windbag speeches about international community, Kerry fails completely to appreciate that force and self interest are what underlie diplomatic relations. The only way to gain compliance from a tyrant is to make him afraid for his life. Cruise missiles demonstrably are insufficient in this task, you MUST be willing to commit troops enough to hunt him down in a spider hole in his own country.

Diplomacy had failed to bring Saddam into compliance with international will not because more countries needed to scowl disapprovingly at his obfuscation, but because he had no reason to believe he personally would suffer. The tyrant sitting on oil doesn't care if you apply sanctions. He has access to as much personal wealth as he could desire. He will be the last man in the country with a cheeseburger in hand. The 'asprin factory' approach plays into the tyrant's hand, as well. Blame the US for killing school children, don't suffer any damage of signifigance, and even gain face by shaking your fist in defiance at the Great Satan.

Diplomacy with such person means that there must be a credible threat of chasing him down. The limits of Clintonian military action are reached when they call your bluff and don't waver after you hit them with 15 Tomahawks. At the end of the day, no one believed we would put boots on the ground, even our allies. Absent the reestablishment of that threat, there could be no diplomacy.

Which brings us to diplomacy with allies. Self interest governs. There is no public support for putting French boots on the ground. It won't happen. Yes, allies don't like Bush, but do you really think that the dislike is intense enough to let us fail if they otherwise would have helped or that Kerry is so much more charming that he will convince them to violate the wills of 95% of their constituents? Kerry is not proposing a serious policy difference, he is proposing to sprinkle fairy dust.

What about accountability? I agree that, assuming mid term elections favor Republicans, a Kerry term checked by the opposition party would have a greater degree of accountability in most areas. The easiest decision for Kerry to make would be to bring all the troops home, say within six months, never to commit boots to conflict again. Perfectly accountable position. Is it desirable? How would he address N. Korea? How would he address Iran? Will he say, flat out, that a nuclear material producing Iran is not acceptable, even if it means employing troops to make sure? Kerry says he wants two more divisions. Do you believe him? Are we to believe that if Kerry had been running the show we would have committed more troops to the field? No. We will get more fairy dust.

Note here that Kerry is the commander in chief, and as such has very high capability to do whatever he wants without congressional approval in these times. The divided government check is weaker with troops in the field than at any other time, by design.

Vote for Kerry becuase you believe that the scope of the fight is AQ and done. Vote for Kerry because you want government reinsured healthcare. Vote for Kerry if you like the specific way he plans on spending like a drunken sailor. For heaven's sake, don't vote for him because you feel the need to fire Bush for poor decisions in a fight that he at least had the fortitude to fight, and don't hire a liberal because you expect him to be more conservative than a conservative. At some point, the satisfaction of firing a poor decision maker has to take a back seat to the concern that his replacement doesn't understand the nature of the decisions he will be asked to make.

It intrigues me that people think that Kerry is going to be protectionist because he's voiced support for "fair trade."

"Fair trade" is a feint for being concerned about job losses. It's like saying you'll appoint a commission to study something. The commission, or in this case multilateral negotations, allow you to tack back to the correct policy while acknowledging people's concerns.

In any case, which is worse: Kerry/Edwards "fair trade" from labor pressure, or Bush's lobbyist influenced mercantilism.

I can't believe it. If you want to pick a slimy liberal traitor (why isn't he in jail for undermining troop morale ?) and coward like Kerry over a good, honest, commander in Chief like George Bush, then God help you.

Universities are probably the only place on Earth were communism still rules. Its no wonder these hard leftwingers (and despite occasionally breakig with them), thats where Mr. Drezner's political beliefs lie support a communist lover like Kerry.

If Kerry becomes President, expect to see all US actions outside having to go through the UN. And despite his occasional talk about preventing outsourcing, expect more jobs to go abroad to China and India, detroying our industrial base. If Kerry is elected, I predict the country will not survive 4 years more. Fortunately, those of us in the red states have a solid bloc of Southern states to live in even if the rest of the country falls apart.

I urge everyone in that ballot booth, the second before you punch a name, think about the man that voted against Gulf War 1.

I realize this is probably a losing proposition and it's quite unlikely to score any points with Dan either, but: Can we just pause for a moment and actually reflect on where we might be today, if we hadn't rushed into "Gulf War 1" at the time?

Wasn't "Gulf War 1" and the way it was executed - by deploying troops in Saudi Arabia etc. - the main motivation for the terrorists to strike America? Might the World Trade Center still stand today, if we had found a better way to get Saddam out of Kuwait?

Please note I'm not advocating "appeasing" Saddam. Air strikes against Iraq would have been more than justified, in addition to sanctions. But did we really have to send troops into Saudi Arabia? And don't say the Saudi government requested them. The Saudi government is very much part of the problem itself - it's a corrupt dictatorship, and our support for it is another reason why we are being targeted by terrorists today.

Kerry's argument in voting against the war resolution back then was that it was "rushed". And that seems, in retrospect, to have been a correct assessment. If we had thought a little longer about how to go about getting Saddam out of Kuwait, we might have spared ourselves a lot of grief that we have to cope with now and in years to come.

I suspect that you, Mark, and some others here will find this argument absolutely appalling. But I wonder if you are willing to engage the actual argument or whether you will just try to stifle it again by envoking Carter or Chamberlain or by claiming that I am blaming America rather than the terrorists.

Yikes. How did this blog get on my reading list. I should have been warned when you couldn't understand why anyone wouldn't by a Germanh car because of a dispute between Schoeder & Bush. The dispute is between the U.S. (our country) and Germany (a country we have saved from the slavery of the Third Reich by the blood of our soldiers and the treasure of our citizens).

Go with Kerry -- don't let down your colleagues in the faculty.

Say, where is David Thompson lately? I miss his invective on a juicy question like this....

Prof. Drezner seems to be caught in an error common to academics (having been in the academy myself, I mean no slur). He thinks that if you want to know what the candidates will do, you should listen to what they say they'll do.

Wrong, of course. Look at Lemann's article on Bush in this week's New Yorker, if for some reason you need a refresher on this.

Alas, I have no particular hopes for Kerry. But based on a comparison of his history with Bush's, I can't see it being likely that he can be as huge a FOOL as Bush.

If Bush had fired Rumsfeld after the looting of Baghdad (or, at worst, Abu Ghraib), and had eased Cheney off the ticket, and gotten Condi a new job after 9/11, I still wouldn't be voting for him ... but I wouldn't despise him.

Nothing justfies re-electing this fool and letting him think that God has smiled upon the 1st four years. Because that's exactly what he will think, and the 1st four years will look like a paradise of moderation.

Hey, Prof. Drezner---have you read that Fallows article, "Blind into Baghdad"? If not, please don't vote until you've read it.

"I prefer a leader who has a good decision-making process, even if his foreign policy instincts are skewed in a direction I don't like, over a leader who has a bad decision-making process, even if his foreign policy instincts are skewed in a direction I do like."

What?!

Unlike you, I don't see the case for voting for Kerry. Here are my reasons. Judge for yourself.

1. Foreign policy is paramount in this election. Kerry as an individual, and the current leadership of the Democratic party as a whole, still see the world through the Vietnam lens. Despite the occasional tough talk now, Kerry, and the Dems generally, will always find reasons to hestitate, temporize, appease and ultimately do nothing effective while dangers gather. Worse, those with whom the next president will have to deal, especially the crazies in Iran, Pakistan and North Korea, know that. They have reason to fear Bush, and that strikes me as a big plus factor in terms of voting for the current team. Today's comments from the leaders of Japan about tbe inadequacy of Kerry's approach to North Korea (the same could be said about Iran, Pakistan and many other troublespots) should give anyone considering a vote for Kerry serious pause.

2. I find oddly ahistorical the assertion that what you and Professor George call the lack of accountability, particularly for errors in the handling of the Iraqi war, is a prime reason to vote for Kerry. There has never been a war of any consequence that was free from mistaken judgments, tactical errors, and much worse. On your logic, both FDR and Truman should have been voted out (perhaps Lincoln too, although on accountability that is a closer case). There was no housecleaning by either FDR or Truman yet at the time there were loud and I think far more substantial grounds for a claim that serious errors in judgment had been made -- FDR for the many, far worse military missteps along the way to victory as well as the internments at home, and Truman for "mishandling" the post-war dealings with Stalin, the reconstruction of Germany, etc. To me, some of the most interesting posts on the web have been articles and editorials from the 1940s, bemoaning the many screw-ups, the utter incompetence of the American post-war occupation, etc. How odd those articles read today. The point is not that we should celebrate, or vote for, mistakes in judgment. But a little perspective is in order. The Abu Graib mess was deplorable, but in perspective, is on a par with the internments during FDR's time. Deporable, yes; but the main event, hardly. Despite the mistaken judgments, FDR and Truman deserved reelection because they got the big things right. Same with Bush.

3. It is helpful to remember that war is a violent teacher (Thucydides?). All agree that the war on terror, and the Iraqi front in that war, is unlike anything America has ever done before. Mistakes, even bad ones, are inevitable. I don't know whether the claims by the punditocracy that the Bush team was wrong in deciding how many troops were needed, where to station them, what tactics to adopt regarding the Sunni triangle, etc., are valid or not. No doubt, in hindsight, the commanders would do some things differently (which ones I don't know). But none of that is troublesome, or should serve as the predicate for the 'accountability' -- firing Rumsfeld, etc. -- that seems to concern you and Professor George so much. If your standard made sense, Grant should have been fired (held 'accountable' by Lincoln) for the bloody mess leading up to and during the early part of the Peninsula campaign before he finally pushed through, despite all the mistakes along the way, to final victory. In war especially, the point is to learn from events, particularly tactics that do not work, and if possible, not to repeat them. As far as I can tell, the Bush team is doing that.

4. You need to ask yourself whether having Bush or Kerry at the helm is more likely to keep America safe. Deciding to replace Bush because he does not fire the "middle managers" when events go wrong seems, to me at least, to have priorities exactly backwards. The comparison of the federal bureaucracy to a business corporation only goes so far. The reality is that there is a quasi permanent government of "middle managers" and higher ups that cannot be fired, that engages in endless turf battles, and that reflects deeply held and starkly contradictory views on every important issue facing the president. The CIA has a starkly different view than Defense, etc. Nothing comparable exists in any business. Firing Tenet because the CIA was wrong on the WMD issue (if they were wrong and there is nothing to the notion that WMDs or predecessors were moved to Syria, and putting aside the Duelfer report's concerns about Saddam's plan to restart WMDs as soon as sanctions collapsed) does nothing to address the reality of the conflicting, quasi institutionalized worldviews held by different parts of the permanent government. Perhaps firing Tenet would have been the right thing to do, but the fact is that it would have changed nothing of substance. You need to recognize that comforting ideas about "firing those who screw up" just like a corporation would do to a manager who fails to deliver on his P/L commitment don't quite fit here given the reality of the permanent government and the fact that it isn't (may never be) clear what the truth really was.

5. The 1940s were a different age, and the kinds of charges leveled against Bush today by Kerry (he lied us into war!), Kennedy (it was all a fraud cooked up in Texas by Rove for political reasons!), Robert Byrd and many others would have been unthinkable in that earlier era. But aren't you concerned that a Kerry win will be taken as validation of that line of attack and where that will leave us as a country?

6. Whatever may have gone wrong in Iraq, I think it bears noting that in March 2003, as the Iraqi campaign began, predictions of the likely cost of the war in loss in life far exceeded what we have experienced. That tells me that some very important things were done very well. Isn't accountability a two way street, in that right decisions are rewarded? Don't you think Rummy got some very important things right, despite a lot of hysterical criticism?

7. When a war is broadcast 24/7, and where the emphasis is always on the problems rather than the successes, it is far too easy to conclude that some decision was a huge tactial or strategic mistake when events may yet prove the opposite. The point is not that the reporting is skewed for partisan reasons (it may be), but that it is driven by more commonplace concerns about what is of journalistic interest, what sells, and what doesn't. Do you really think the country's policy can be run based on what is currently being featured in the news cycle? Are you confident you have an accurate picture of events in Iraq, and that your picture is more accurate that Allawhi's? Aren't you concerned that demand that Bush be fired because he didn't fire "middle managers" has a tendency to reduce policy decisions almost to an Oprah/Geraldo level? Remember, too, that accountability is a concept that never applies to armchair critics. So a little humility, and perhaps a bit more confidence in the commanders on the ground and their ability to adjust to changing and difficult circumstances, is warranted here. Before accoutantability can be invoked, the person meeting out the reward/punishment needs a firmer grip on the facts than any voter could realistically claim at this point. Since I am convinced that Bush has the better strategic approach to the ongoing war on terror including the Iraqi front, it seems clear to me that the greater folly would be to vote based on what the 24/7 news cycle shows and to ignore the essential fact that Bush is right about the current historical moment and Kerry is not.

8. I don't understand your point about Kerry's ability to accomplish diplomatically anything significant that Bush could not also accomplish. As others have noted, France has no friends, just interests. The Aussies and apparently the Japanese don't share the view that Kerry has some great diplomatic skills that will do us (or them) any good. Quite the opposite. See point 1, above. The notion that "nobody likes America anymore" is without substance. European elites have thought ill of the US for decades -- remember all the noise about the Pershing IIs, US warmongering, etc. during Reagan's administration. That will not change and, frankly, does not matter any more today than it did then. On the point, Rummy was clearly right unless this is the one truth that you think dare not speak its name.

9. The domestic issues are important, but do not tilt decisively in favor of either candidate. In all events they are overshadowed by the foreign policy reasons for sticking with Bush.

Sorry for the overly long post. But you asked for it.

"Wasn't "Gulf War 1" and the way it was executed - by deploying troops in Saudi Arabia etc. - the main motivation for the terrorists to strike America?"

No. It was a justification. Were that excuse not available another would have been chosen. The goal of the Islamo-fascists is not to remove Americans from SA except in passing. The goal is to seize power anywhere and everywhere possible.

"Please note I'm not advocating "appeasing" Saddam. Air strikes against Iraq would have been more than justified, in addition to sanctions. But did we really have to send troops into Saudi Arabia?"

Air strikes and sanctions... kinda sounds like the last 10 years. No, without ground forces we could not have forced Hussein out of Kuwait most likely. He would have held out and eventually world consensus would have turned against our bombing campaign. Not to mention the number of scuds smacking Saudi and Israel would be problematic. Would Israel have attacked Iraq at some point? Probably. What would our the response be by the Arab world? Who knows? The point is, you dont get to choose how much war you have, circumstances and other players dictate that. What you suggest simply gives the initiative to Hussein, and it is a dangerous mistake to think American military victory is ever inevitable.

"Kerry's argument in voting against the war resolution back then was that it was "rushed". And that seems, in retrospect, to have been a correct assessment. "

Or it might have emboldened our enemies still further. Our coalition may have cracked. Without American troops, would Hussein have cut a deal with the Saudis at the point of his tanks and scuds? Perhaps. The Saudis were good allies with a quarter million US troops between Hussein and Riyahd. Without them, who knows?

"I suspect that you, Mark, and some others here will find this argument absolutely appalling"

Its an interesting thought exercise, but the assumptions you make are dangerous. Since when have our enemies and adversaries respected America's patience and diplomacy more than force? How many enemies and troublemakers did we cow by shocking the world by kicking the snot out of Hussein in what everyone assumed would be the mother of all battles? How much respect did we earn around the world and how many Vietnam ghosts did we vanquish?

"But I wonder if you are willing to engage the actual argument or whether you will just try to stifle it again by envoking Carter or Chamberlain or by claiming that I am blaming America rather than the terrorists."

Lets put it this way, Neville Chamberlain never in his wildest dreams expected his solution to result in the disaster it did. He never had the faintest notion that both France and England would be routed from the entire continent in a month. He wasnt a bad man, he just didnt understand how the world works. When bad people do bad things, they must be punished, or they are emboldened. Letting Hussein keep Kuwait or slink out assumedly by eventually cutting some deal would have strengthened him. His nuclear program, for instance would have continued. What would his ambition have driven him to do next, assuming America would never send troops to stop him? Thats the bottom line, some people understand the nature of tyrants, and some simply cannot fathom them. Those might be decent, honorable, educated folks, but they are still weak in that respect. I think John Kerry is such a person. I dont think he understands who we are dealing with and what they are capable of.

"The amount of attributes not remotely found in his record you must project onto Kerry to consider him remotely hawkish is astounding."

Well, he *is* the only candidate who fought for his country.

Bush and Cheney are only hawkish in the most cowardly way.

Josh writes:
'At some point, the Bush Administration has to be held to account for woeful incompentence in Iraq.'

How would anyone be able to tell whether we are 'incompetent' -- what would be the yardstick ?

In other words, if the Iraq war is sui generis, the relative 'competence' of the administrations efforts will be determined by history writers 50+ years from now.

Put another way, can you say: 'The management of the Iraq war was worse than ...' what ? Germany/Japan in 1945?

Germany in 1919?

I say you can't.

I remain unconvinced that Kerry understands the limits of multilateral diplomacy

He doesn't understand diplomacy period, other than its affect on the weak-knees in his audience. His promise to engage in bilateral negotiations with NK is nothing more than a threat to cut Japan out of the talks over its own future, essentially treating them like Poland before WWII, as little more than bargaining chips, with no say in the outcome. This is supposed to improve things for us how?

There are two parts to your current problem: the first part is some kind of apparent belief that things were much better before Bush, when this clearly is not the case; the second part is the apparent belief that Kerry will be able to do any better, which is also clearly false.

Let's roll some footage from the Clinton years:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/01/13/venezuela.us/

Chavez spurns flood relief from U.S. troops
January 13, 2000

Two U.S. Navy ships headed for flood-ravaged Venezuela are returning to their Norfolk, Virginia, base after President Hugo Chavez rejected an offer of assistance from the U.S. military, the Pentagon said Thursday.

There is Chavez refusing aid from the US because the aid is from the US. And check that date--this is after eight years of Clinton's warm-pussy diplomacy that everybody seems to think Bush has squandered. How far could he have fallen, really?

Ah well, that was just Chavez, who we all know is broken in the head anyway. Surely things among our allies were much much better. What about, say, the Irish, whom we even helped with negotiations in the northern troubles? Nope, not much better there either. Consider that when the USS John F Kennedy carrier docked in Dun Laoghaire in 1996 that every lefty opposition group in the country made protests over its nuclear payload, or argued that its presence violated Ireland's position of stated neutrality, or said that the daily overflights from the on-board jets were clear acts of war. I was living in Dublin during this time; I could barely leave my flat, and had to keep my American accent soft in order to avoid conflict--you know, the exact same shit that expats are complaining about today, except that this was under Clinton, and happened in the middle of a multi-year diplomatic effort towards helping the Irish.

What about Iraq? How did Clinton do there? For one thing, it was 1995 (Clinton) when the French and Germans stopped participating in no-fly zone overflights. Turns out that those nations preferred the deal from Saddam (exploration rights to take effect at the end of sanctions) over partnering with warm-pussy Clinton to enforce UN sanctions.

What about when Clinton engaged in operation Desert Fox, to eliminate Saddam's "known" WMD stocks and programs (which the Duerfler report now says was eliminated in 1991)? He could only assemble a coalition of a half-dozen nations for that effort (including stalwarts in this one), while his opposition included today's opponents as well as many others. For example, the only time in US history where Russia has recalled their US ambassador in protest (not even during the Cold War) was in angered response to Clinton's mis-handling of ODF:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/18/iraq.world.reax.04/

Russia: Iraq airstrikes a blow to world order
Egypt urges Clinton to 'contain the crisis'
December 18, 1998

In unusually strong criticism from the Russian military, Gen. Leonid Ivashov, the head of the Defense Ministry's international military cooperation department, said the attack could lead to a major separation from the West.

Moscow "will be forced to change its military-political course and may become the leader of a part of the world community that disagrees with the (U.S.) dictate," ITAR-Tass quoted him as saying.

Read that again... that happened under Clinton.

In retalition for the imperialistic Clinton hegemony, France Russia and China began moving towards lifting the sanctions against Iraq. As part of the negotiations, Clinton traded away the activist UNSCOM for the passive (verify only) UNMOVIC, and agreed to terms that would end sanctions as soon as UNMOVIC could not disprove Saddam's declarations (as a matter of pure luck for our side, Saddam was naturedly unable to file a declaration which could not be proven as false). Even after trading everything away like that, the resolution only passed because France Russia and China all abstained from blocking it.

On the other hand, Bush managed to build a large coalition and also contained the countries that would not join. This is a marked and demonstrable improvement over the sitution in 1998, and is remarkably better given that Bush engaged in all-out war while Clinton was limited to a four-day bombing run.

Of course, Clinton was limited to that because [1] the right was killing him domestically and [2] the left was blocking his attempts to go any further than a small bombing. As to the latter point, who can forget the famed town hall where Albright, Cohen and Berger were shouted down by their own constituents:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

U.S. policy on Iraq draws fire in Ohio
February 18, 1998

Albright was drowned out at one point by a group chanting, "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war," as she tried to explain U.S. policy to the audience of 6,000.

Same audience, same response, different admins. Clearly the problems here are with the crowd, not with the admins. It helps the MSM and their zombies to blame Bush for everything, of course, but history tells us otherwise.

Certainly the extent to which hostility towards the US is expressed has shifted somewhat, but that hostility has always been there under the surface. If anti-Americanism is now at a 7 or 8 (anything higher would have to involve open warfare or subterfuge), then it was already at a 5 or 6 under Clinton, just operating under the surface. In some areas (such as national governments), things are clearly better -- we don't have France on our side but they weren't there after 1995 so that's no loss, and we have better relations with Russia and China this time.

Kerry thinks he'll do better than Bush and maybe even better than Clinton. Bullshit. Kerry is insulting our allies, offering to bargain away the Japanese, and promising to stop short of full democracy in Iraq. He's also demonstrated that he has no clue about the hostile reception that will greet any American president in some quarters, regardless of the anti-American history of that president himself.

And let's be clear about what a future under Kerry will look like -- it will be a lot like the past under Kerry. In 1970 he said that he thought US troops should only be mobilized under orders from the UN, which of course meant that the Soviets and Chinese could veto our response to their agressive moves. He has since distanced himself from that remark, but I look at his history and I see him living it out. Between his anti-war activities during Vietnam, his work to advance communism in Nicaragua and Grenada during the 80s, his appeasement of Saddam in the 90s, and his continued efforts towards constraining America insted of our enemies... all I see is the 1970 Kerry living large. Get ready to trade away Japan's security -- no missile defense shield for you -- just so Kerry can appease his leftist base and score points with the anti-Americans.

Can't do worse than Bush? We alredy did worse under Clinton (through no fault of his own; the fault is with our enemies), and we will certainly do worse under Kerry.

"Well, he *is* the only candidate who fought for his country."

Im the only candidate that ever flipped burgers, does that qualify me to CEO McDonalds?

I live in fear of a day where Kerry could actually get elected president. He do or say anything to get elected, and drag American down the toilet with him.

If you believe having a rank opportunist, someone utterly without principle (Kerry has always been a leftist but now he won't embrace it) and someone who has absolutely nothing substantive to show for 20 years in the Senate is reasonable presidential material then there is no point in trying to persuade you to the contrary.

Kerry is an empty suit. God have mercy on us if enough fools pick another Democratic narcisist for president.

For several YEARS now, when asked about Bin Laden, George Bush has used non-sequiturs and bromides such as "he has been marginalized. He's hiding in a cave. We're on the hunt. I'm not that concerned with him."

By that logic, we should allow everyone on death row to go free, as long as they promise to live quietly in the woods and not bother anyone. Bin Laden killed THOUSANDS. How many Americans would agree that adequate punishment for Bin Laden is "marginalization"?

If you were about to jump to your death from the top of the World Trade Center on 9/11, what would YOUR last thought be? I'll tell you what MINE would be: Get the bastards who did this to me.

I don't want to hear about the "hunt." I reject "marginalization." I want to know why Bin Laden has enjoyed life for three years longer than his thousands of victims, and what we are doing to capture or kill him.

Period.

***
I note that the fact that I had already (pre-emptively) made fun of the idea that people voted for Kerry because they wanted to keep Weld as governor did not stop you from laying out that idea in all seriousness.
***

I almost didnt answer this because of your smug and superior tone in addressing me. Generally, it has been my experience that people who treat others on the net the way you do usually have very little to add to the argument.

The fact is that one of the themes put forth by Kerry and the MA Dems at the time was exactly what I said - keep Bill Weld as governor. If you take a moment to go back and research the campaign you would see this or if you lived in MA and followed the race as I did you would not be mocking me about this.

In any discussion of MA politics post Dukaukis, the consistent drive of the voters to elect a republican (any republican?) to the governor's office to block the dems controlling all areas of government cannot be doubted.

As for Howie Carr, he is a guy who glories in going after "hacks" (nonpartisan) and pissing and moaning about the state of MA. Does he support Kerry? Hell, no. In fact, he appears to disdain the guy. Why else would he be chuckling at the thought that Americans would get to known him as well as we do in MA?

So if an independent or Republican says something about Kerry its out of bounds or unfair or not worth considering?

Dan,

Why you should vote for Bush:

Yes, Bush has made mistakes. Quite a few. As you know, he is the President, and every decision he makes is scrutinized to the letter. But, he has made a hell of a lot more terrific decisions that will pay off long after his term ends, whether that is this January or in January 2009. Every social issue you can think of is meaningless unless the huge issue or terrorism and radical Islam is sent to the dustbin of history, and without being concerned for re-election, but legacy, you will see a new peace dividend, perfect for Democrats to get back to their issues sooner than you think.

Why you should not vote for John Kerry: He has been on the wrong side of history his entire life. And he will worry more about what Kofi Annan and the NY Times editorial page thinks of him than in making difficult and unpopular decisions. A Kerry administration will be just like Clinton's, an attitude of, "what can we do to get through this news cycle with as little damage as possible."

You know what you are getting with Bush. And, a man of your intelligence knows exactly what Kerry will do, no matter what position he takes this week. Nobody what the left-wingers have said, you know in your gut that Bush is a good man who will do what is right regardless of his popularity, and you know that Kerry is a panderer who will do what is popular, and inaction is highly popular in Democratic circles.

Yeah, Bush isn't perfect, but who is? For me, I know he'll do everything to defend my daughter's life. Kerry, on the other hand, may avenge her death if it doesn't upset France and Belgium.

Prof. Drezner,

You live in the People's Republic of Illinois (words of another Chicago native), right?

Your vote doesn't matter; Kerry will carry the state easily and Obama will trounce the clown for the Senate.

Unless you have followers in other states who would be influenced by your decision, don't lose too much sleep over it:-)

"I don't want to hear about the "hunt." I reject "marginalization." I want to know why Bin Laden has enjoyed life for three years longer than his thousands of victims, and what we are doing to capture or kill him. "

Has it occurred to you that the man is buried under a mountain somewhere? Should we task our entire military with digging up Afghani mountain sides until we find a corpse? This isnt a battle against one man, to frame it so is in fact to lose focus. This isnt even a fight against 'Al Qaeda'. Al-Zaqawi is every bit as dangerous and determined to hurt America and he doesnt necessarilly even have his Al Qaeda fraternity pin.

mark Buehner, Dundare, and Ursus,

you guys made good points!

I still wonder why anyone should care about Daniel Drezner's vote - as I said before, Illinois is not in play!

I wrote:

What about Social Security and Medicare? When Kerry was asked about it in the debate, he essentially said, "It's not a problem. 10 years from now, we'll look at it again, and if it still looks like there will be a problem, we'll have a commission look into it."
Doesn't that worry you?

Kate wrote:
Oh Adam, I doubt it. I have three words in response to that...
Defense Secretary McCain.

Huh?? You lost me there Kate... what does McCain have to do with Social Secuirty and Medicare? Are seniors going to be so inspired by him doing policy into a ripe old age, that they decide not to retire and collect benefits?

In thinking about a Kerry administration I shutter about what may lie ahead. You should too. America's fighting men and women have little or no respect Kerry.

Who knows where they will be once the the Kerry Admin. is actually established.

Suggest you consider what Victor Davis Hanson writes(excerpt):

Terrorist killing, like the first World Trade Center bombing or the USS Cole, certainly was not seen as the logical precursor to 9/11 — the expected wages of a quarter century of appeasement that started with the weak Carter response to the Iranian hostages and was followed by dead soldiers, diplomats, and tourists about every other year. No, these were "incidents" like 9/11 itself — "law-enforcement" issues that called for the DA, writs, and stern prison sentences, the sort of stuff that barristers like Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, and McAuliffe handle so well.

This attitude is part of the therapeutic view of the present struggle that continually suggests that something we did — not the mass murdering out of the Dark Age — brought on our present bother that is now "the focus of our lives." We see this irritation with the inconvenience and sacrifice once more reemerging in the Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, and the New York Times: We, not fascists and Islamist psychopaths, are blamed for the mess in Iraq, the mess in Afghanistan, the mess on the West Bank, and the mess here at home, but never credited with the first election in 5,000 years in Afghanistan or consensual government replacing autocracy in the heart of the ancient caliphate.

To all you of the therapeutic mindset, listen up. We can no more reason with the Islamic fascists than we could sympathize with the Nazis' demands over supposedly exploited Germans in Czechoslovakia or the problem of Tojo's Japan's not getting its timely scrap-metal shipments from Roosevelt's America. Their pouts and gripes are not intended to be adjudicated as much as to weaken the resolve of many in the United States who find the entire "war against terror" too big, or the wrong kind, of a nuisance.

Instead, read the fatwas. You hear not just of America's injustice in Palestine or Chechnya — not to mention nothing about saving Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo or Afghanistan of the 1980s — but also of what we did in Spain in the 15th century and in Tyre, Gaza, and Jerusalem in the 12th. The mystery of September 11, 2001, is not that it happened, but that it did not quite happen when first tried in 1993 during Bill Clinton's madcap efforts to move a smiling Arafat into the Lincoln Bedroom and keep our hands off bin Laden. Only an American with a JD or PhD would cling to the idea that there was not a connection between Group A Middle Eastern terrorists who attacked the WTC in 1993 and Group B who finished the job in 2001.

A Kerry presidency, we know now, will go back to the tried and true institutions so dear to the therapeutic mind that please the elite and sensitive of our society. How silly that most Americans are about through with the U.N. Indeed, we Neanderthals want it relegated to something like the Red Cross tucked away at the Hague, if not on the frontlines in Nigeria or Bolivia. Yes, we dummies have seen enough of its General Assembly resolutions aimed at the only democ