test

"To take no notice of a violent attack is to strengthen the heart of the enemy. Vigour is valiant, but cowardice is vile." --Ancient Egyptian. The Pharaoh Seunsert III. cit. H.R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. 161. According to a global poll more people throughout the world would vote for John Kerry over George W. Bush in the upcoming elections. I've often been asked how I could support a President who has the whole world protesting against him . There is the undeniable fact that no country on earth has freed more people than the United States since WWII. "Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Afghanistan, Grenada, Kuwait, South Korea, the former captive nations of Romania, Bulgaria, the Czechs, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania (all holding elections since the early 1990s), and the other former Soviet republics". And who has caused the most problems? Who gave us communism, which was the 20th century's greatest killer-killing many more than Hitler himself...

"[John Kerry's] real conundrum is that his voters disagree with one another on almost every major foreign-policy and terrorism issue. So, no matter what Kerry says, he will alienate a goodly portion of his voters.... One example: [Pollster Scott] Rasmussen asked if Iraq was a part of the War on Terror or a distraction from it. Republicans overwhelmingly said it was integral - by 79-14. But Democrats were divided. Half said it is a distraction - but 36 percent felt it was a key part of the war effort. So what is Kerry to say? Either way, he loses votes. And if he waffles, he strengthens his reputation for flip-flopping" -- former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, writing in the New York Post.

The New York Times has a good article by a soldier in Iraq giving you his perspective of the war. A worth while read.

Presidential candidate John Kerry conceded that he would still have supported the war with Iraq knowing everything we know now. If you read the article you will see that his differences with Bush are not based on disagreements with the basis for the war, but the logistics of it. So essentially all the arguments against the Iraq war that are based on finding no WMD's, is it a pre-emptive strike war, or Iraq not being an imminent threat have now went out the door. There is no difference between the two candidates for president on those issues. As for his reasons for denying the funding for this war, he says, Kerry has said he voted against that measure because it would have financed the war with borrowed money. He voted for a defeated alternative that would have rolled back some of Bush's tax cuts to pay for the conflict. So let me get this straight, the reason Kerry refused to fund the troops fighting a war he agreed for in principle was because it left tax cuts in place? Does ...

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting take on what the conclusion of the 9/11 commision was, So the doctrine of pre-emption has its uses, after all. In a world of conflicting intelligence, uncertain consequences and potential foreign opposition, it is still sometimes necessary for America to attack an adversary before it attacks us. We refer readers specifically to the recitation of non-action that starts on page 11 of the executive summary. Beginning in 1997, the U.S. tried diplomacy to get the Taliban to drop al Qaeda and Pakistan to drop the Taliban, but the efforts failed. We now know that only an ultimatum turned Pakistan, and only military force toppled Mullah Omar. The details, however, should not obscure the Commission's larger message about the dangers of not acting against a looming threat. After a year of recriminations against a President who chose to act against another threat, in Iraq, the report may even do some good. This is similar to what Charles Krauthammer...

Charles Krauthammer has an interesting article on the dilema Iran poses and how it differs from Iraq. Like it or not, Iran is a problem that we are going to have to deal with one way or the other.