That's a pretty scary set of words, even when phrased in a question. The chances of this becoming a reality, John Kerry being sworn in as the forty-fourth president of the United States, increased this week. Why? The superficial answer is the performance of both candidates in last Thursday's debate. Kerry did well; Bush, poorly. Beyond this surface explanation, lies an uncomfortable truth. Yes, Bush did poorly in the debate because he is not as accomplished a debater as John Kerry. More importantly, Bush did poorly in the debate because it was a debate that focused on Iraq.

If the war in Iraq never happened, President Bush would have this election in the bag. He is more likeable than every president of the last forty years save Reagan. The economy is picking up. His leadership after 9/11 was outstanding, and there hasn't been a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil since that terrible day.

Here are some potential realities of a Kerry presidency: four pro-abortion Supreme Court justices, gay marriage, tax hikes, even bigger government, and a commander-in-chief who seeks UN and not congressional approval for military action. If you are a conservative, a Kerry presidency terrifies you.

Knowing how John Kerry would like to govern, and knowing that the war is not popular among independents and undecided voters, will the Iraq war have been worth it if it results in a John Kerry presidency?

Obviously, issues of life and death, weapons of mass destruction, the prospects for freedom in Iraq, the expenditure of billions of tax dollars, U.S. involvement in nation building, and the actions of a brutal dictator are the serious issues that influence one's approval or disapproval of the war. But there are also domestic political consequences that deserve to be weighed.

That roughly half of all Americans believe the war is going badly (even if they think Kerry would handle the war worse) hurts George W. Bush. Even if more Americans don't believe the war a mistake than do, Iraq is divisive and not a winner politically for the president. Knowing that Iraq could result in a Kerry victory, and that a Kerry presidency will result in the advancement of many liberal policies, will Iraq have been worth it?

How can you say that Bush's leadership after 911 has been outstanding and at the same time bemoan Iraq? Iraq is an example of his very flawed leadership. The guy is an empty shell, a puppet, which everyone saw on TV last Thurs.

Patrick,

Iraq is an example of a leader who makes difficult choices based on what he sees is best for America (right or wrong), rather than political expediency. Bush could have easily taken the easy way out and been virtually assured of re-election based on his post-9/11 popularity. Instead he made what he knew would be an unpopular choice based on his beliefs, and his commitment to protecting the U.S. We don't know if a Kerry presidency would feature such apolitical statescraft, but a history of the man does not offer much cause for optimism. Ironically, it is Kerry who more closely resembles your unflattering description of Bush as an empty shell and puppet.

If you believe that the war on terror is not confined to the handful of actual participants in 9/11 (hijackers, planners, financiers), and that the destructive capability of WMD warrants preemptive disarmament of those who may proliferate such weapons to terrorists, then the decision to invade Iraq was, at the time it was made, the correct one.

If you do not, it was not.

It's no good pointing out that WMD have not been found in Iraq. The prewar intelligence (supported by the same intelligence from England, France, Russia and Egypt) supported the conclusion that they were there.

Was it worth it? After the fact, no. Would it have been worth it if WMD were there? Yes. And given that all our best intelligence indicated WMD were there, it was the correct decision (in my opinion).

"Stay the course! Stay the course!"
Who was it that said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little ststesmen and philosophers and divines?"

I know it doesn't mean much ultimately, but how do you figure there are more Bush signs, bumper stickers and overheard support voiced for President than for John Kerry in his own state of Massachusetts?

Curious.

Maybe the tax slaves of the Commonwealth know something the rest of the country doesn't??

Guido,

Emerson wrote that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Emerson, of course, was for the most part a fool himself, but the quote is still a good one.

We should extract ourselves militarily and politically from Iraq and the middle east as quickly as feasible and let the region completely alone. They attack us b/c we are there, period.

Of course, neither party has any interest in doing this so both will be foolishly consistent in their destructive foreign policy.

"They attack us b/c we are there, period."

If by 'they' you mean the non-Iraqi terrorists coming into Iraq to fight the U.S., then I disagree. They would attack us anywhere. The suggestion that our presence in Iraq is what motivates Islamic terrorism is fundamentally mistaken.

If the U.S. is to be safe, 'they' and the depraved culture that breeds them must be rooted out and destroyed. If not, it is only a matter of time before 'they' are capable of attacking us with a nuclear (Iran), biological, or chemical (Syria) weapon. What will the doves say when downtown Boston is ground zero to such an attack?

My statement stands whether we are talking about the insurgents in Iraq or the Wahhabi terrorists. Although, clarification would of course be needed as you suggest Brad for such a vague statement using amorphous terms like "they."

For the insurgents in Iraq it is a case of "we fight you because you are here." As for the general radical Islamic movement my statement still stands but the "here" is the Middle East in general and included in "attack us" is attack us over here at home through terrorist actions or our embassies around the world or other interests.

As for rooting out and destroying a depraved culture . . . good luck, just please stop enlisting the American army and money to engage in your Quixotian dream. I have no sympathy for the Christian heresy known as Mohameddanism but I am content to let them live in barbarity and under their accepted tyrannical governments over there. We have absolutely no chance of rooting out any culture and destroying it. I would prefer to engage my efforts at "culture razing" over here where I live under the extreme barbarism of a culture of death which gets rich off the murder of its own future generations.

We, sadly, do not live in Christendom, and can no longer engage in Crusades against the heathens abroad. The heathens we should be concerned with rule the roost in our own society. And GWB is no Richard the Lionheart.

While we're at it, perhaps we should let Israel stand alone. And why stop short of the Middle East, let's withdraw from every region where the possibility for conflict with Islam may arise. Indeed, perhaps we should consult with Iran and Syria before making policy desicions; we wouldn't want to give them undue cause for aggression.

Perhaps Europe should do the same. Spain could cede its Southern half just to avoid any misunderstanding. And Russia could do the same; call it a school-safety program.

Yes Brad, that is my argument exactly.
Regards,

Glad I could set you straight.

Sincerely,

I agree. Kerry whipped Bush convincingly in the debate. The unfortunate thing, however, is that a debate is not capable of showcasing anything but intelligence. And a very specific, public-performance category of intelligence, at that. A debate of this nature cannot showcase CHARACTER or LEADERSHIP.

Kerry won simply because he is slick.
It has nothing to do with his ability to be our President.