... of world terrorism is unprecedented in history and does require innovative thinking about national defense. However, there is no way of knowing what would have happened ...

>> Had Gore been elected ...

... because he would have been writing on the same "blank page" provided to Bush.

Unfortunately, however, IMO we are not getting from the Bush administration the kind of innovative thinking necessary to effectively fight terrorism. Nor are we:

>> ... fighting the enemy where it lives with our military.

At least not to the degree we should be. The primary "enemy" here is al-Qaida, not Iraq. We were absolutely right to go into Afghanistan, but the Bush plan for doing so was militarily deficient and remains so to this day. Then he allowed himself to get side-tracked by Iraq (which is not an "enemy" in the war on terrorism, has no significant ties to al-Qaida and was not in any position to do anything to threaten us). All or most of the troops committed to Iraq should have been sent to Afghanistan, rather than being committed to the also poorly planned (and politically naive) invasion of Iraq.

Furthermore, what is happening in Iraq is that we are creating more terrorists than we are eliminating. And doing so at a huge cost to our country in lives and dollars.

>> Make no mistake, these people want you dead too.

Yes, there are radical Islamic terrorists who want Americans dead. And it may even be true that:

>> They also would rather see those in power
>> in America to be pacifist and anti-war.

But, Bob, even though we've been friends a long time, I have to say frankly that I'm stunned by your comment that:

>> Kerry is Al Qaida's man! They want a weak leader at the top.
>> Consider yourself on their side.

I have said here before that I'm not all that worked up about Kerry and almost certainly will not vote for him, but equating support for Kerry to support for al-Qaida is partisan demagoguery at its worst.

----- jim o\-S