Larry K---

Pardon my exasperation, but talking to you is like talking to the wall. Worse, in fact, ----the wall at least does not keep reciting the same drivel over and over.

How many times do we have to patiently instruct you?---you're slower than most.

1)   Kerry supporters are aware Saddam is a murderous thug. There are lots in the world. This was not the reason Bush cited as pretext for his invasion, as even you should be aware. Only the loony Left (which does exist) would say Saddam is no worse than Bush. This is not the point.

2)   Yet again----do you ever read anything but your own tired mantra?-------Neither Kerry nor his supporters say terrorism is a "nuisance" now---just that it should be our goal to get it to that stage. Even Bush, in an extremely rare moment of lucidity, said that the war on terrorism could never be won.

See my posting of 20 Oct 2004 12:39 AM on the "There is no terrorism" thread.

In case you're crippled and can't get to that posting-- the main disagreement between Bush and Kerry on terrorism is how to get to the stage where terrorism is not the all-pervasive fear Bush is now stoking to assure election. Unless of course Bush is fool enough to think he can eliminate terrorism world-wide, for the first time in history.


3)    Bush supporters may think he has been "consinstant" (sic) in his views of terrorism and Iraq.


And they're dead wrong

A)   Where is Chalabi now?---remember him?
B)    Who keeps waffling on whether to attack Fallujah?   Clue:   It's not Kerry.
C)   Bush is all over the map on relations with Iran---why do the mullahs prefer him?
D)   Who keeps changing position on Libya---and now is blithely willing to accept Libya's statement it won't be a bad boy and sponsor terrorism any more?

etc.


Kerry was willing to give Bush the authority to use force in Iraq as a last resort. He found Bush could not be trusted to do that as a last resort---and so have the rest of us learned that Bush can't be trusted to make the right decision----on virtually anything.


4)   I asked you once already why the majority of men who actually served under Kerry (not in other Swift boats) think he was a fine leader.

Somehow you forgot to answer. Wonder why.


5) If the UN is a disgrace, how did Allawi (the new George Washington of Iraq, having replaced Chalabi in that position) get in? Since you appear a bit dense, I''ll tell you.----the UN was willing to act as honest broker between the US and Iraqis. Allawi was not the first choice of the UN, but without the UN it's unlikely anybody acceptable to both sides could have been chosen.

Ergo----if American casualties go down, since more Iraqis are taking them, it's because of the UN.

Are you grateful?   Somehow I doubt it.

6) Attacks on the US---I doubt the Patriot Act is our savior-----and there have been plenty elsewhere.

Patriot Act----the Bush Keystone Kops can't even get a single list of terrorist suspects------that's why Çat Stevens wound up on one list but not another.

Acccording to the Wall St Journal, the Bush (League) FBI and Bush (League) Homeland Security can't even agree which has responsibiity to put together such a list-----each says the other.


7)   UN should handle US security----Kerry himself has denied this tired canard over and over. Don't you ever listen to anybody but yourself?

8)   IQ etc.-----No, of course Bush isn't an idiot.   It's just too bad he doesn't use his stunning IQ once in a while. After 4 years, it's time for somebody who both can think and is willing to think.

Too bad you're not willing to bestir yourself to do so.