You take questionable analogies to a level I have never seen before...I don't even know how to frame a coherent response to such incoherant ramblings.

The one thing I do have to say in response is this:

It's the Democrats who are running around trying to pretend that Al Queda is the only terrorist organization that warrants our concern--In fact, how many times have we heard it argued that "since Sadam had no ties to Al Queda" (which is a questionable premise), that the USA was not justified in attacking him.

What fails to be mentioned in that argument is that Sadam had numerous ties to other terrorist organizations over the last 20+ years that have been clearly established.

Yes there are different terrorist organizations and I will even grant you that there are different types and levels of terrorist activity. But the fact remains: We are at war with terror. It is not called the "war with Al Queda" for a reason.

If John Kerry wants to argue that this should be a war with Al Queda and not a war with Terrorism then let him make that argument. But the last I heard, he's trying to take the war issue from Bush by stating that he will be a better warrior against terror than Bush.

Scott Evil

P.S. How's this for a supposition: With Kerry’s insistence that he would be better at waging the “War on Terror” and your insistence that a “war on terror” is a bad idea, you must support Nader?