>Here's a few thoughts I have on the issue. Hmm, elections in Afghanastan, elections in Iraq in January, no attacks in the US since 911, a homeland defense initiative (of which I have been an active participant), Sadam in prison, 75% of Al Queda dead or apprehended, Demolition of thousands of tons of armament in Iraq, with more to follow, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum. Yeah I feel safer.

It remains to be seen whether or not elections will take place in Iraq. Last word from Allawi was that 14 of 18 provinces were secure enough to hold elections. I'm not really good at math, but that's about 39 out of 50 states. Any problem with us just not holding the election on Nov. 2nd in Florida, Texes, Louisianna, Tennessee...?

The 75% figure on the Al Qaeda leadership hasn't been verified, at least to my knowledge, and you're likely relying on Bush's remark during one of the debates. Relying on the word of a politician, especially during a debate, is dangerous enough. Of course, if the 75% figure is accurate, Al Qaeda has replaced those positions so 75% is not only dubious, but highly misleading.

>No, we haven't been pushed around by anyone, but that's because we are militarily strong. Should we be unfortunate enough that Kerry were elected, we would have problems. He would try to turn our destiny over to the UN, or even worse - Canada! You missed the point!

We're not that strong now because we are stretched pretty thin. The fact is, we can't really do much about countries that actually already have WMDs (North Korea) or are actively trying to make them (Iran).

>You might try setting your sites a little higher. Here's a quote from Winston Churchill:
>"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."

Yes, we should look at the results. 20 months after Wolfowitz told Congress we were likely to be welcomed with open arms, 18 months after "Mission Accomplished" was declared, we still don't have a result. Not only that, we have no end in sight.