Just like a good Leftist he’s waitign to be spoonfed the information as well as what to think about it.

Evidently you fell asleep on September 10, 2001, and have yet to wake up.

Your statements demonstrate quite nicely, Kevin, why Democrats like yourself are thoroughly incompetent to protect this country; you don’t even understand the basic nature of the threat.

It doesn’t take an army to attack the United States. All it takes are a few determined people and some form of action amplifier. On 9/11 it was airliners being used as cruise missiles; in the plans that we’ve already found out about, it was dropping vials of biological agents in the New York subways or setting off a crude explosive device laden with leftover radiological waste in the middle of a major city. Or it could be as simple as the war waged on Israeli soil for years, with children, women, and others with bombs strapped to their bodies blowing up stores, schools, churches, and any other target that will spread maximum devastation.

And you and your party don’t consider any of that a threat. You don’t even consider it an attack, or that fighting it off is a battle. Indeed, you and your party have consistently and completely opposed taking measures against terrorists, and have done everything in your power to stop the United States from keeping them from crossing the border, identifying and tracking their actions, arresting them when they are here, and imprisoning them for their crimes.

Osama bin Laden today stated that Europe would be attacked and people would die because newspapers published a cartoon that offended him.

You deny that that is a threat, that such an action would be an attack, or that repelling it is a battle.

And he’s not alone over there on the Left… there’s been plenty of mainstream books written on this topic over the past few years.

Anyone with a brain knows that there is no legitimate movement for a Christian theocracy in this country.  Anyone with a brain knows what the goals of Islamists are.

And Kevin laughs at people who take the Islamists seriously.

Kevin: Your mentality  is pathetic.

you’re doing a great predictable job.

Oh and the fact that Cheney "leaked" the ID of a super-duper, covert secret agent singularly responsible for our national security. Don’t doubt that there’s pity at play in putting him on here campaign.

When he launched the Iraq initiative, I wondered why he chose it over Syria.

One had much more justification.

a) Syria didn’t have 12 years of U.N. resolutions essentially suspending its sovereignty and demanding that the world take action against it.
b) Syria hadn’t attacked four of its neighbors, used WMD on its own people, and threatened terrorism against foreign powers other than Israel.
c) Though brutal and repressive, Syria had killed a smaller percentage of its people than Saddam in Iraq.

Also, possibly geography: Closer to both Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The Bush Administration is the absolute WORSE public relations administration in my lifetime

Agree. Partial excuse: Bush inherently lacks charisma. He is what he is. He simply can’t inspire people to fantasize about him and say ridiculously adoring things. Good news: you know what you’re getting, with him. Bad news: you can be 110% sure you aren’t getting a bit more.

McCain appears no better. It’s depressing

But once the war was under way, with Senate and UN approval, it was up to Bush to sell it. He continually regurgitated talking points. In hindsight, his more cautious route of going through Iraq was the right choice. My preference for taking out Syria might have been the easier course, but it was never an easy to sell tactic.

Bush has too often played the chucklehead that the liberal elite claim him to be. But Reagan was also considered to be a dunce and portrayed by the MSM as something akin to Ronald McDonald or less. Perhaps Bush has known from the beginning that he would be savaged by the liberals and the MSM no matter what he did.

When all is said and done, I prefer feisty to milquetoast.

In all three areas, the same pattern exists. And notice the pivot point is just as the 2nd term starts:
[These are just excerpts, the article is very long]

“What does seem clear is that defective policy judgments and bad political decisions, particularly in the immediate aftermath of his reelection, show every sign of undoing one of the president’s more impressive policy achievements. Once again, the pattern is excellent initial judgment, strong will, fair to decent early execution, culminating in distraction and in an ultimate failure to finish.”

We’ve seen how this worked to undo or render negligible some of his bravest and most innovative domestic moves, such as the first-term tax cuts and the faith-based initiative. The same failure to follow through demoralized Bush’s supporters and threatened his achievements in foreign policy as well.

…

[This agrees with what I’ve been saying all year… Rice is a disaster]

What caused this kind of progress to peter out, to be de-emphasized or put aside? One factor, surprisingly, was that Bush’s second-term secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, was more deferential to outside and internal opponents of Bush’s policies than was her openly skeptical predecessor, Colin Powell

…

[I’ve been saying this all year too… we may doing good in Iraq, but everywhere else is a disaster and our work in Iraq is going to be squandered becasue Iraq will never be stable as long as Iran is ruled by the Mullahs]

In terms of the political debate, all this leaves the president with just about the worst of all worlds. If you share the president’s premise that Iraq is only one front, albeit an important one, of a much larger global conflict, an improved Bush grade on Iraq is dwarfed by failures and humiliating retreats virtually everywhere else, most visibly Iran and North Korea. If you share the mainstream Democratic storyline that Iraq was a blunder and diversion from capturing Osama bin Laden and annihilating al Qaeda, the survival and consolidation of al Qaeda’s high command in western Pakistan and the continued strength of Taliban forces in Afghanistan are further confirmation of the blunder, modified not at all by the recent success of General Petraeus. If you agree with those a bit further left, that the global war on terror is nothing but a bumper sticker, seemingly contrary evidence in such widely disparate places as Gaza, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan simply proves that most of the anti-American unrest in the Arab and Islamic world stems from our Iraq invasion, our partiality to Israel, or some combination of the two, in which case a quick retreat from Iraq is just as necessary as it was before the arrival of General Petraeus.

I can’t wait for 2009 and for him to leave. It’s like having a void in the White House.