Unfairly how? Kerry has flip-flopped on many issues… That is, the ones he has shown up to vote on. His campaign has demonstrated very clearly that he will say whatever is popular at the time to get elected. Reference the presidential debates, when he said “I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Now that the media has convinced the public that things have not gone well for the Bush Administration in Iraq, it is very convenient for him to qualify those statements towards the anti-war sentiment.

…the Bush administration did what it could to exaggerate the threat from Iraq.

Says who? Every intelligence agency in the world believed that the threat was real. Further, we still do not have any explanation for where the weapons, that Saddam himself disclosed, have gone to. Many believe they are in Syria, or Sudan. It was made abundantly clear after 9/11 that we are no longer playing games with Rogue States.

…claiming a significant link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, when there was none.

We may not have proof that there were Iraqis involved in 9/11, but they absolutely are involved in supporting Al Qaeda, and other terror groups. It is widely known that Saddam supported Palestinian terror with cash payments. (Oil -for-food money perhaps?) Regardless, Al Qaeda is now in Iraq and they seem to be flocking there. Why not take them out in Iraq instead of in the U.S. It seems like brilliant policy to me.

I saw no compelling reason whatsoever to go into Iraq right then.

I carefully watched all of the news and briefings in 2003. It sounded good enough to me. As a veteran, I was convinced simply by the persistent attacks on our forces securing the no-fly zones, and the blatant disregard for sanctions. I might add that these were conditions of the cease-fire in the first Gulf War. They were put in place to prevent the United States from rolling into Baghdad when we should have. Violating these restrictions made the cease-fire null and void.

On a side note, I couldn’t believe that we were being required to show a “smoking gun”. I hate that term by the way. A “smoking gun” alluding to one that has recently been fired, presumably at US.

It’s distracted us from important priorities, cost us a fortune, helped to spur terrorist recruiting abroad, distracted from the hunt for bin Laden, alienated important allies, and the list goes on and on.

This is the Democratic by-line; that we have somehow strayed from our mission. On the contrary, this is precisely our mission. We have two choices for foreign policy: international involvement, or isolation. If we choose the former, as a world power we inherit the great responsibility to provide security and justice in the world.

The U.N. has no credibility. It is fraught with corruption. It has consistently allowed ethnic cleansing and atrocities (Bosnia, Kosovo- I have been there and seen the mass graves that could have been prevented- another product of the Clinton White House, like 9/11). Its members are solely concerned with their own economic development. (How ironic since that is what we have been accused of).

We are making great strides in the War on Terror. We have successfully gained support from countries in a position to help, like Pakistan and the liberated Iraq. We have captured key operatives and undoubtedly foiled terror plots against us. The United States has not seen a repeat of 9/11. The only War we have not won, is that against the liberal media, that does not report the news, but rather the “story”, completely motivated by politics. It’s a damn shame.

Here's how I see it. Kerry has been unfairly grilled for supposedly flip-flopping on Iraq. The Bush campaign early on latched onto the "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" bit and has clung to that tightly, with success that boggles my mind. Clearly if Kerry supported a resolution early that didn't pass, then the Republican Congress DID NOT support it. So Kerry supported an $87 billion package before the Republican senate did. It surprises me how few people go beyond the sound bite. And supporting one resolution while not supporting another is not a flip-flop. It's how Washington works. FURTHER, even if it's for the troops, you don't just support ANY $87 billion resolution. That's a lot of money. Republicans knew a bill would pass. Kerry knew a bill would pass. That's why people didn't feel the need to vote for a bill they didn't like.

Kerry's position on Iraq has been pretty steady from the beginning. He's supported "regime change" in Iraq for a few years. That's actually been the official position of the US government since 1998 when Congress passed a bill and Clinton signed it. But regime change doesn't necessarily mean military action. The Democratic Party platform supports "regime change" in Cuba. So what. They aren't going to invade in the next four years. Kerry's position is that he wanted to give Bush a strong negotiating hand with Iraq and the international community, so he gave the president the AUTHORITY to use force. The president, in order to get sufficient votes from Congress, promised he would exhaust every diplomatic and weapons inspection option before invading. He exhausted neither. (If you want, read what the inspectors had to say. Contrary to Bush claims, the inspections were going pretty swimmingly.)

Then there's the little matter that the Bush administration did what it could to exaggerate the threat from Iraq. Senators have access to intelligence, but the Bush administration presented brand new claims. They said Saddam could hit US cities with aerial drones, and things like that. And they built support for the war among Americans by claiming a significant link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, when there was none.

I believe Kerry should have known better than to vote to give the president authority to go to war. In early 2003 I looked at all the evidence, and I saw no compelling reason whatsoever to go into Iraq right then. It's distracted us from important priorities, cost us a fortune, helped to spur terrorist recruiting abroad, distracted from the hunt for bin Laden, alienated important allies, and the list goes on and on. Meanwhile we're underfunding homeland security, and Greenspan warns that our fiscal outlook is bleak unless we make major changes.

So that's my take. As I said, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a pacifist either. But I don't believe in jumping into JUST ANY war.

If Kerry were a thoughtful person, he would have staked-out a position on Iraq (surely a critical issue) early in his campaign. If he were a thoughtful person, he could not have been forced to eventually take a position by his challenger's questions. If he were thoughtful, there would not be so many contradictory statements in his past. And finally, if he were thoughtful, he would be able to defend his position by strong rational arguments, having anticipated objections, rather than trying to 'nuance' the language of his statement and claim misinterpretation.

I don't see Kerry as thoughtful, but rather as a muddled thinker with poor decision-making skills.

We have been in Iraq a little over 15 months, the average Iraqi life has improved. The strategic importance of establishing and Arab democorcacy in the middle east can't be overlooked. Not too mention the adddes bonus of removing the biggest threat Saddam. Irrespective of his WMD capability. People talk about Iran. How can you make a move on Iran with Saddam as your neighbor and the largest standing army in the middle east.

Leadership is sticking it through the ups and dowsn even when people feel there is no victory in site even when people feel you are stubborn. That's leadership.

Kerry was a fool to answer... but he had no choice.