[A Quiet Boom]

Sherman, a counter reply but I won't do the whole quote thing again it's just too long. I believe that after 9/11 it was prudent to go after Al Qaeda AS WELL AS other terrorist organizations with intention of harming the US and it allies. Questions two and three are similar. The UN security council acknowledged Saddam had a weapons program. Israeli (one of the best intelligence services in the world), British, Russian, along with our own intelligence and some of the Arab nations all believed he had weapons. If youi remember correctly the arguement at the UN before the war was not whether or not he had weapons, it was whether or not we should use force to remove them. The UN passed a resolution stating force could be used but when the President went back to the UN for another resolution directly authorizing force he didn't get it. It's rather telling that the countries who were complicit in the Oil for Food bribery scandal where the ones who threatened a veto. Saddam bribed them and they voted against us, yet they never stated he didn't have weapons, only let the inspectors have more time. As far as acting, we had already been through more than a decade of resolutions, sanctions and diplomacy and Saddam continued to thumb his nose at the world, the time had come to take action. As for proof before acting, we had proof that Al Qaeda would attack the US because they did in 1993 at the trade center. As well as the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. 9/11 was proof they would attack, should we have waited for Saddam to sponsor some terrorists to attack us before attacking him. Bush is using a policy that the best defense is a strong offense, we had proof that he used chemical weapons against the Kurds how where we to know he wouldn't do the same against us? Imminent threat? The President never said that those are JOHN EDWARDS words when he explained his vote for the use of force. If John Jerry and John Edwards are so much wiser why then, without the proof you desire did they authorize force? Those two say the President rushed us to war, so did they but they won't tell you that. I do not agree with Bush's position on Iran and NK, I'm simply stating that he is using global pressure, sanctions and diplomacy to try and solve the problem which is exactly what John Kerry is saying NOW that he should have done in Iraq. How can Kerry say we didn't use enough diplomacy in Iraq and then suggest we aren't being tough enough on Iran and NK. Kerry is trying to have it both ways and it won't work. If the current efforts don't work then force may be neccessary but as a last resort, just like it was a last resort in Iraq. (I know you don't think it was a last resort in Iraq, it's a difference of opinion both sides have). The President's plan is very clear, go after the terrorists wherever they may be and go after regimes that actively support them. The war on terrorism is exactly what it's name implies. A war against Al Qaeda only will leave us vurnerable to attacks from many other terrorist organizations. As for missteps, no candidate will ever recognize mistakes during a campaign, his word would be taken out of context and used against him as soundbytes by his opponent. The President during Friday's debate recognized that mistakes where made militarily but wisely wouldn't expand on the issue. As fo battle cry, John Kerry doesn't have one nor does he have a plan, he has changed his position so many times that I can't trust anything he says won't be different next week.