I (humbly) disagree with the belief that W is good for our nation's security. I'm extremely unimpressed with Bush's leadership in matters of national security.

I believe that while Hussein horribly mistreated the people of Iraq, it was not presenting a threat to the US.

The only terrorist activity that I'm aware of Iraq attempting was the assassination of President Bush (George Herbert Walker Bush). And once that was thwarted, Iraq had not presented itself as a threat (source: Against All Enemies).

Perhaps you'd say then that just because it hadn't presented a threat, yet that it deserved to be targeted.

I could understand that logic, if there weren't other threats that easily eclipsed the potential threat that Iraq posed. When North Korea (a nation that the Bush administration considered in the 'Axis of Evil') actively trumpetted their nuclear ambitions, the US had already committed to the deployment of troops to Iraq. I believe security is about setting priorities, and in this case we overcomitted to the wrong priorities... And I hold Bush responsible.

In order to attack Iraq, we had to strain diplomatic ties with other nations. Now, I don't care particularly for France or Germany, but I'd rather have them on my side than having their populace dislike us for (apparent) imperialism. We can't make the world more secure by ourselves... we need allies.

My speculation is that the conquering of Iraq in addition to the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib, will result in terrorists with a somewhat legitimate chip on their shoulder.

"You attacked my country, killed my countrymen, and then flagrantly flaunt your mastery of my country".

Does that sound like a person that's going to make America more secure? If we didn't attack Iraq, that disdain would not have existed.

So, in November, I'm going to choose Kerry to be president.

It may be possible to justify the invasion of Iraq as a liberation from Hussein. That makes the US more noble, but that wasn't the way the war was sold to us or the world... I'd say Bush fares a little better if you take that tact, but that doesn't change the fact that he's made us less secure vs. more secure.

By the way, welcome to Askingforthirds :)

"If we were to elect Kerry as President, we would enable terrorists like Bin Laden to run free around the world. We need a President who will stand his ground and tell the people of the world that America will not just roll over."

I really hate to let facts get in the way of mindless repeating of republican talking points (KIA should know better), but here goes:

There is no reason to believe that Kerry would allow Bin Laden to run free as you claim. Kerry has and continues to support taking military action against Afghanistan and the Taliban.

Indeed, it is Bush who has shifted our resources away from hunting down Al Queda to attack Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, er, weapons of mass destruction related activities, er, gassing a bunch of his people in the early 80s, er, looking at us the wrong way.

As a result of this war, we have reduced troops in Afghanistan allowing Al Queda to regroup, and allowing the Taliban to come back to power. In addition, by acting unilaterally in Iraq and with incredible arrogance, Al Queda currently has MORE members than it did when the war started.

But my greatest fear with another four years of BUsh, is not terror from the middle east, but rather terror from 1600 Pennsyvlania Ave. The erosion of our civil liberties over the past four years has been phenominal. The abuses are too many to recount here, but see my diary for the most recent example.

Those of you who know me know I tend to shy away from hyperbole, but I can honestly say I am absolutely TERRIFIED by the prospect of another four years of Bush in power.

Ah, fear. Vote for Bush or you'll die!

I believe there have been documented episodes of Saddam Hussein torturing and/or killing his people, so I'm glad he's has been removed. I suppose the torturing and killing of the people of Iraq is left to our soldiers now.

There probably was proof of Saddam Hussein manufacturing chemical arms. Fine. I agree with the honorable Scott in the fact that this was not the biggest threat to national security (North Korea). Should the United States play the role of big brother of all other nations? Last time I checked, most nations have weapons, and in the last four years I would say most don't really care for us.

What else? Oh right. The funding of terrorists like the elusive Osama Bin Laden. I believe Tina Fey said it best when she uttered, "We finally caught the guy that had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks." I hope they catch Bin Laden, but I certainly can't say America would be safer with Bush in the White House. What makes Bush more capable to deal with terrorists than Kerry? Is it Bush's magnificient leading of the Texas Rangers or John Kerry's experiences in Vietnam?

With all the fear being thrown around, I try to look at all the issues, not just the Bush administration's mismanagement of Iraq and the thousands of lives lost, but other important ones such as the economy including his tax plan, his failure to fund No Child Left Behind (and the punishments given to schools in need), the failure of medicare, and his ignorant views on gay marriage.

Redefeat Bush in '04!

Kristel, thank you for being brave and speaking your mind. Welcome to the askingforthirds family! Don't be discouraged by what we say.

Oh yeah and go Kerry.