Kerry is running for president with an ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a more widespread war on terror.

He isn't going to win the election by saying it isn't his job to think of something--it's Bush's.

And just saying he would have done "something" a lot more clever and effective than Bush if he had been president in 2001 isn't going to do the job except for people with very small brains. Neither is saying that if he is elected, he will do something a lot more clever and effective to fix the problems we face in Iraq and elsewhere, but he can't say what it is because he isn't President yet.

Every policy statement (such as they are) that he has made so far basically has been that he would do what Bush is doing. Only, of course, more cleverly and effectively. And France would like us again.

You're not stupid enough to buy any of that. Why support it?

You want to know what Bush did right? He went ahead and actually did something, instead of the endless political wanking that others have been doing for years. Did it go flawlessly? Of course not. Look back through history at any President who took the bit in his teeth after a threat to America and see if everything went flawlessly. No war goes as planned. Name one that ever did.

But almost fifty million people are not living under tyranny any more that were on Bush's inauguration day. Are they out of the woods yet? Of course not. But there is a chance now. There was none before.

Al Gore would still be making speeches to the United Nations and bombing camps and caves in Afghanistan from fifty thousand feet, while Libya, Iran, North Korea, and eventually Iraq armed themselves with nuclear weapons.

Vote for who you like. I've laid out my reasoning. I'm sorry you don't have anything or anyone to point to that has a better roadmap. That's not my fault.