I propose a better solution. How about we stick to Afghanistan, maybe go after Iran and Saudi Arabia (where the 9/11 terrorists came from) ... keep negotiating with North Korea. You see, all of this was in Kerry's platform. The problem is that most conservatives are so pent up in trying to justify their mistake that the hear only what they want to hear. People called the Democrat's positions wishy washy; I say they heard what they wanted to hear because they don't want to hear that they are blatantly wrong. We've presented all kinds of options and other avenues to resort to, you just refuse to hear it because you're too busy denying the fact that you're taking it in the butt by your own party (excuse me, I forgot that your party doesn't like butt stuff either). I find that this last election was a bit of an interesting thing. Democrats had great ideas that most people refused to hear because of this selective hearing phenomenon, but the dems weren't charismatic and passionate enough about it and so seemed to be flip floppy and weak. On the other hand, the Republicans had precisely zero good ideas, but were completely passionate, even zealous, about their lack of substance. Say freedom and liberty enough (46 times in the inaugural speech) and it appears that that is what you stand for, even if your actions bely your words. Had we not gone into Iraq, we would have had much more credibility and much more stability to attack the heart of the problem. You want to talk about human rights violations? Saddam gassed and killed tens of thousands of people over a span of about 20 years in Iraq. He had no WMD's. Compare this with the fact that they show executions on TV! in Iran, which is a brutal theocracy that kills more people and threatens the US more than Iraq ever did. Or lets not forget the fact that genocide and AIDs kill millions (thats right, not thousands or tens of thousands) of people in sub-saharan africa EVERY YEAR. I've decided that you talk too much. He that talks the most usually has the least to say. If you want to have a candid discussion about logical solutions to the Iraq problem, I suggest that you be quiet, get your facts straight, and then start to listen instead of paraphrasing the GOP platform as you've done thus far.

Thanks very much for the feedback.

Your notion that it was the intention of the Kerry team to go after Iran and Saudi Arabia is simply wrong. Kerry advocated a more forceful diplomatic approach to Saudi Arabia -- an approach that has only become more feasible in the wake of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. Review his speeches. He goes as far as promising to address the House of Saud with "forceful language."

Not terribly threatening. But I think that was a prudent move on Kerry's part.

Invading the Saudi kingdom would be unwise fo a number of reasons. First, the lack of resources: we don't have the troops to invade and occupy Saudi at present, and even if we did, we would do better to use them elsewhere such as Iran or Syria.

One can hardly imagine a better way to convince the Islamic world that this war is against all of Islam than to invade the Saudi kingdom. Indeed, one of the main benefits of invading Iraq was that we no longer needed to maintain troops in Saudi.

If Saudi were the biggest problem in the region or if our resources were unlimited, I might agree with you and advocate that we bomb the crap out of Riyadh and set up a democracy. However the reality is that Saudi is actually very friendly to U.S. political goals in the region, not the bulwark against all of our designs that Iraq was. In any case, the House of Saud has recently undertaken as much liberalization as possible without undermining itself.

A lot of issues between the U.S. and Saudi remain outstanding. But invasion is just not a feasible option right, and no political analyst really takes it seriously.

Let's talk about Iran now. John Kerry never once explicitly threatened to use force against Tehran. To my knowledge, neither has President Bush, though I wouldn't put it past him in the future. Actually, Kerry's policy on Iran was to threaten to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions.

It's a rather toothless approach given that three of those five permanent SC members would never agree to such sanctions. And remember, Kerry is the internationalist here. He won't lift a finger unless circumstances pass the muster of the famous "global test." If the Security Council won't even agree to sanctions on Iran, they (and by implication, Kerry also) are certainly a long way from signing off on any sort of invasion. You can't be too hard on Kerry for this. Iran is a tough nut to crack. No one really knows how to solve that puzzle.

In any case, I don't know what version of the Democratic platform you read, but if Democrats were planning to attack Iran or Saudi Arabia, John Kerry doesn't seem to have known about that. Indeed, one can hardly imagine the political confusion and turmoil that would have followed if John Kerry had simply come out and called for the invasion of Saudi Arabia or Iran as you suggest.

But I have a bigger problem with your argument.

Even if the Democratic agenda had included knocking off the Iranian mullahs or the House of Saud, such an agenda still does not constitute a "vision."

When I use that term, I'm referring to a specific plan for winning the war on terror. You can knock off bad regimes all day, but in the final analysis, that won't stop another fanatical regime from springing right up in its place. You can kill terrorists all day, but for every maniac who blows himself up in Israel or Iraq, ten more stand ready to take his place.

Think about this: the results of each of the three world wars (Cold War included) dramatically altered the political makeup of the world.

But how will the war on terror change the world? What will the world look like when it is won?

The Bush team has an answer to all these questions. The key component to his vision is the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East. Free countries, the rationale goes, are peaceful ones. Free people are usually more concerned with raising their own children than blowing up other people's children.

John Kerry does not subscribe to this vision. He doesn't talk about freedom and democracy because he doesn't believe in using American power to realize those goals. He would much prefer not to upset Middle East stability. Rather than forcibly reforming the Middle East, he opts to encourage authoritarian tyrants to reform themselves by working through international institutions and offering various diplomatic incentives.

You see, President Bush offered a bold vision of a hopeful future. The road to it is fraught with risk and the dangers of war.

John Kerry offered a return to the direction-less foreign policy of the 1990s. And yet, the road down which he proposes to travel is even more dangerous. For though he may prefer not to wage war against the authoritarian status quo in the Middle East, that status quo is at war with us. The dangers of it were brought home to all of us on 9/11.

It's the same principle underlying Churchill's response to Chamberlain's declaration of "peace in our time" after the appeasement of Hitler at Munich.

"You were given a choice between war and dishonor," Churchill said. "You chose dishonor and you will have war."

That's why Democrats keep losing. They offer no vision, no hope of a bright future. Only dishonor and the false hope of avoiding a war that is already upon us.

So in response to your suggestion that the Democrats really did offer a vision that included the use of force against Saudi Arabia and Iran, I would suggest, in summary, that:

1) The Kerry team never had any intention of mounting an invasion of Saudi Arabia or Iran.
2) Even if they had, this hardly qualifies as a vision because it does not subscribe to the democracy-building component that is central to the Bush vision.

Thanks again for the feedback, but I respectfully disagree with you.