W. has been attemping to exmplain and justify the war in Iraq for a year and a half. His answers haven't changed yet the questions continue. Regardless of whether you support Bush or not, this fact alone should make the White House pause.

How do you think Bush's "I'm decisive and optimistic" message will compare with Kerry's "we should have waited, I would have asked the French and the economy's in trouble" complaint? Bush promises to stimulate the economy by getting taxes as low as possible while controlling spending while Kerry says he will tax the rich to eliminate the deficit and doesn't explain how he will stimulate the economy by raising taxes.

Bush's interview showed he will put his determination to win the war on terrorism and his middle American personality up against Kerry's strong anti-war, anti-military view of the world and his sometimes shrill, eastern distain for others.

Looks like a real red states vs. blue states contest that will produce the largest presidential election turnout in history. Nobody can say you can't tell Republicans from Democrats.

Kerry is calling Bush "extreme," but Bush came across on Meet the Press as reasonable, moderate and well intentioned, while Kerry sounds "extreme" in his stump speeches. I question whether Kerry will wear well during the long campaign. We know that for most Americans, Bush is easy to listen to even when we don't like what he has to say or what he wants to do.

At this point, it appears Kerry will be a much better candidate than Al Gore and that Bush will be a much stronger candidate after what he's gone through during the first 3.5 years of his presidency.

This isn't to say the Bush campaign won't attack Kerry. I can see commercials showing Kerry morphing into Teddy now. Or, JFK to Teddy to JFK. Look for the line: "America needs a strong, decisive war president, not a president who would accept the last resort, submission to terrorists."

As for Bush's answers on Iraq being simple, they were not half as simple as is the notion that when Democrats said Hussein had wmd they were honest and when Republicans said it they were lying to help Halliburton make money.

Really? You'd prefer someone who gives different answers every time?

I realize that Bush has set such appalingly low expectations for any unscripted interviews that merely engaging Russert for an hour may cause an uptick in his approval rating....but getting to the substance.

The new Karl Rove mantra which includes referencesto "madman" and "dangerous man in a dangerous place of the world" do not suffice for a justification for war. Just like Condi Rice on the Today show, a few days earlier, Bush sounded like a pull-string toy with limited vocabulary.

I agree that the issue of military service is overblown...in fact, I've always thought of it as anachronistic and an inappropriate litmus test for any candidate, despite the popular belief that somehow 9/11 changed everything.

Did it strike anyone as particularly ironic that Bush was essentially cherry-picking David Kay's report to make the case that Hussein was a grave and gathering danger? If this is the same kind of self-serving logic that was applied to CIA intelligence, I think Bush inadvertently answered the most important question on everyone's mind.

1. The verdict is still out on Iraq and still possible that they may be found. Even if they aren't, every sensible person knows that whether a war of choice or necessity, the president has discretionary power to determine when our national security is in danger. Not too long ago, 9-11 had people calling for a war. As I recall, Bush waited quite a while. I remember thinking, "when are we going to bomb somebody?"

2. I also look forward to the debate on vietnam. What was Kerry doing while Bush was serving in the guard? He was protesting with Jane fonda, throwing someone else's medals at the capitol, and lying to meet the press and to the government about war atrocities.
I say let them tie themselves to this ship and watch them go down with it.

---