I think your “question” was more invective than a genuine query, but I’ll try to answer you.

What I had hoped for from Kerry was not a bidding war vs. President Bush to see who could turn the rhetoric up highest. (Actually, I have at times been critical of Bush for his outpourings of quasi-Churchillian speechmaking while neglecting specific actions within his power that would tilt the odds more in our favor — e.g, he should have launched a serious shakeup of all the intelligence services, including firing people who had not done their jobs; he should have unhanded DOT from Norm Mineta and placed it in the care of someone who isn’t opposed to airplane passenger profiling because he’s nursing a grudge from 1942.)

There are plenty of things Kerry could have said that would have reassured me. He could have flatly stated that Islamo-terrorist groups could not expect any less heat if he were elected. He could have clearly expressed his belief in the importance of pre-emption rather than reaction, that to the best of his ability the war on terror will be an away game and not a home game. He could have acknowledged the obvious (which, I’ll grant, Bush has been craven about as well) that our borders are defended so poorly that they offer virtually no resistance to terrorists, let alone illegal immigrants, and that this must change.

I wanted from him a spelled-out list of priorities that placed fighting the war as job no. 1, and not a promise designed to appease one segment of the electorate.

While there was nothing wrong with his paying tribute and vice versa to veterans of the Vietnam war, he could have paid equal tribute to the servicemen who have performed so outstandingly in Afghanistan and Iraq (even if he wants to be ambiguous about whether he supports the Iraq invasion).

Given Kerry’s record, I’m not sure I would have believed him if he had said and done all those things. But I wouldn’t go all hollow inside, as I currently do, when I think of him in the White House led around by cynical European politicians, opinion polls and the New York Times.

One of your favorite debate tactics, Mark, it to take someone else’s words and exaggerate them and then rebut that exaggeration.

This blog has offered up mounds of evidence on the weakness of Kerry on national security; the logical conclusion is that a Kerry presidency increases the odds of a terrorist attack; therefore, our lives are at stake and defeating Kerry is a good way to protect one’s life.

His strategy is simple: try to hype up enough Bush hatred and hope that is enough to carry him to victory. That’s why he sends out his pitbull Howard Dean and allows Michael Moore to be the unannounced star of the convention…he needs the irrational hatred they stir up…

Back OT, notice how Kerry and his team would not outright disavow Howard Dean’s shameless comments yesterday regarding the increased terror warning in NYC. While Lieberman had the courage to call Dean’s comments “outrageous” all Kerry could do was have one of his advisors say that Howard doesn’t know all the facts. Some disavowal of a kook…this is one more indication of what a Kerry presidency would be like…it is clear he would pander to the Michael Moore/Dean looney crowd…

Rick: I agree with you…Kerry seems a kind of soulless politician who sways in the wind. Like you, I wish the Dems would have nominated someone like Lieberman, where national security would still be a top priority and dealt with properly.

But no one can really take Kerry seriously any longer…I mean, the guy has to be reminded in interviews that we are at war, for goodness sake…

Although I’m a Bush supporter, I listened to Kerry’s acceptance speech with a genuine hope that he might make me rethink my perception of him as squishy on the war. After all, he might win, and if he does it’d be some comfort to believe that he wouldn’t necessarily be a total disaster and add further risk to the lives of all of us.

Of comfort I found none. What I heard was a man who seems to have no grasp of the picture outside of electoral politics, no seriousness about the clash of civilizations that has been forced on us, however much we would rather not have to deal with it. I got the impression that the war on Islamic terrorism was for him simply an item to be checked off on a list, because he knows (although he can’t quite grasp why) it’s a big issue with some of us — he probably thinks of us as “the ‘war’ faction” — before he went on to offer the appropriate bait tothe next interest group.

Nothing he said suggested that he has the backbone or would surround himself with the kind of strategic thinkers needed for defeating — not “responding to” — a threat that is the most dangerous most of us have known in our lifetimes.

So for instance on a thread about Kerry’s weakness on national security we end up discussing the meaning of the word “terrorism.”

Back on track: It is absolutely scary what Kerry represents. His opposition to the Patriot Act alone should disqualify him. Every terrorism expert around hails the Patriot Act as one of our major tools in the war against terror, and Kerry wants to tear it down and remove it from our arsenal.

He is absolutely disgusting in blathering about how we need to blindly implement the recommendations of the 9-11 commission immediately…knowing that such recommendations can never be implemented immediately, and knowing that the 9-11 commission is not God on high, and thus not likely to have made perfect recommendations. The fact that Kerry uses this as a political football shows how sick of a man he really is.

Just because you may disagree with my assertion that Kerry’s weakness on national security would put our lives at risk doesn’t mean I engage in terrorism. Be real and argue points rationally, or else you have no credibility.

Is A.T. threatening to blow you up if you don’t vote for Bush? That would be terrorism. Suggesting that terrorists will succeed in blowing you up if you put Kerry in office is a different matter completely.

I believe that Kerry possesses an inherant weakness on national security that would place Americans in jeopardy…and you do not. I believe that Kerry does represent a fire, and you do not. It is simple as that.

However, Jay and others on this blog, as well as myself, have offered many of Kerry’s quotes, votes, protests, etc. to back up the assertion that Kerry cannot be trusted with national security. You have just called me a terrorist.

True enough…..but there’s no fire. Your shouting fire based on the fact that there might possibly be fire at some point in the future…maybe. That’s not advocating increased vigilance, it’s putting an artificially-inflated sense of purpose on yourself for personal gain….which is exactly what Bush is doing by saying that nobody but him could possibly stop terrorism (and hasn’t he done a hell of a job so far!!).

And I have no problem with you committing acts of rhetorical terrorism every few minutes, but I reserve the right to point it out when you do. Ultimately, the ploy is likely to backfire since your argument basically illustrates that the Republican Party and al-Qaida depend upon each other.

AT, you should wear a rag on your head and quote Allah when you spout your terrorist propaganda.

One more comment like that and you’re gone.

That kind of leadership can get Americans killed…and that is a real danger of a Kerry presidency…