Late April. That's when the polls swing.

Although Kerry might look more Lincolnesque in a beard to conform to Islamic dress code, Teresa would never wear a burqa, and the fact that Islam does not have the same policies toward taxation or national health care means Kerry will never be as sympatico with this form of anti-Americanism as he was with those opposing the U.S. during the Vietnam era.

Instead, his logical disconnect, and that of others on the left, comes more from the sentiment uttered by one Michael Moore the day after 9/11, when he wondered out loud why the terrorists targeted New York and Washington, D.C., when those areas voted against Bush in 2000. In the back of their minds, they really believe the Islamacists hate Bush and his beliefs and governing style, the same way they do, and that if they were only to get into office, their less arrogant (code work for "racist") way of treating other nations would solve the problem.

With no ideological tie, that means that Kerry would have no compunction against coming down hard on al Qaida in the future, but only after they did something like detonate a dirty bomb in Times Square or in Las Vegas on his watch, and therefore made it clear that they were not just Republican-hating terrors but were actually bi-partisan in their desire to see Americans killed. Once they attacked John F. Kerry's America, then it would be seen as a personal attack on John F. Kerry and the gloves would come off, no matter what Jacques Chirac of Kofe Annan might think.

Why Las Vegas ?

Nevada went to Bush in '00.
And '04.

Hit Las Vegas on a weekend, with all those hedonistic California voters up for a 3-day, 2-night trip, and you'd have Kerry irate over al Qaida targeting his West Coast constituancy...

So where is this link to "Islamicism" in Bush's speech?

John,

Las Vegas is the city where the "heartland" folks go to sin as much as Californians do.

Bush's statement about Kerry's argument - "...but only if other countries don't object." - is also clearly a lie Bush's part. Bush is also rather disingenuous regarding the court issue; yes, the prosecution of those involved in the 1993 bombing was handled by the courts, but the courts did not, as he clearly implies, did not attempt (nor could they - its beyond their jurisdiction after all) to prosecute actions against terrorists in Afghanistan, etc.

Anyway its a nice bit of spin about what Kerry feels, etc., but the far more rational and reasonable explanation is that Kerry objects to their use because they give traction to Bush politically, not because Kerry is somehow fighting internal demons. Your argument makes for good agitprop for the "party" though.

BTW, I do always love how political partisans ultimately rely on psycho-babble for most of their arguments (either pro or con); its utterly empty, but it amusing at the same time.

Probably another thing to note is that Bush has stopped the filming of coffins coming back from Iraq; an action which appears to fall squarely into oj's "avoidance" psycho-babble. Hoisted on your own petard I would say.

He's been to services for the dead; have you? Who's doing the avoiding?

oj,

Well, given your standard, clearly Bush is; he has banned footage of returning flag-draped caskets from Iraq. Whether I am or not is beside the point.

He's been there--what does footage for other people have to do with anything. Events happen even if you don't see them.

oj,

The same thing the footage in the commercial has to do with your "avoidance" theory; clearly both want to excise from the public debate bodies being carried around with flags draped over them. Indeed, whether Bush went to see some coffins is also beside the point; your theory does not discount avoidance in some instances and non-avoidance in others (call it "mixed avoidance" if you will).

Look, if you aren't honest enough to accept the neccessary implications of your arguments that's fine; but please, stop trying to blow sunshine off my [nose].

Mr. Gunnels:

Bush isn't avoiding--he's deeply involved. He may be hiding the effects of the war from others, but that's not avoidance.

oj,

He is avoiding; if he weren't, he would not have banned the footage of coffins.

"He may be hiding the effects of the war from others, but that's not avoidance."

Oh how Clintonian of you. *LOL*

oj,

After a time, liars begin to annoy me (something about rank dishonesty, especially over something so stupid as political partisanship and the cult of personality it engenders, really annoys me); I think I've already reached that threshold with you. Indeed, at base, lies are an avoidance of personal responsibility. Therefore, have a nice life.

Mr. Gunnels:

If I hide something from you, neither of us is in "avoidance". If I refuse to face it myself or if you refuse to look, then we are in avoidance.

Who is LOL?

Bipolar indeed--thirty posts in two hours and then a sulk.

By the way, it is not true that Bush banned the filming of returning coffins. The ban has been in place for years, including both Republican and Democratic administrations.

I look at it this way;

If Kerry wins the White House, Al-Qaeda wins the war.

Gary's point about Islamicism is well taken, and Harris, like Bush, is still missing the point.

The few willing to kill themselves for Islam have the backing of the many who don't.

The whole religion is the threat, not just Al Queda. But Bush breaks bread with the enemy.

He is in profound avoidance.

Kerry worse, but neither is dealing with the real problem.

A constitution in Iraq, a constitution in Afghanistan, Iran rumbling towards reform, liberalization in Sa'udi Arabia, protests in Syria, Qaddafi making kissy-face... You just can't stand that a religious system can evolve into liberal democracy can you?

"LOL" - Chatroom shorthand for Laugh Out Loud.

Harry:

What have you got against diplomacy ?

"Break[ing] bread with the enemy" is bad if it mean capitulation or appeasement, but if you're actively moving against the enemy, what's wrong with a little jaw-jaw ?

I suppose Kerry could make being tougher on Saudi Arabia a key part of his campaign, and it would put the administration in a bit of a rhetorical bind. The problem would be Kerry would then have to expand on what he would do about it, and as the recent Time interview shows, he appears to want to keep all the fire exit doors wide open at this time.

ANother take on the Arabs dancing in the street in celebration after 9-11:

They are turning themselves from Men into Orcs.

"The whole religion is the threat, not just Al Queda. But Bush breaks bread with the enemy."

Harry, I can't agree with you on this one. You give too much credit to religion for its ability to dictate behavior. People's aspirations are a greater determinant of their behavior than their religious beliefs. The Islamic world has been feeding on a thin gruel of western resentment for a long time, mainly to cover up their shame at being so politically, militarily, economically and technologically inferionr to us.

In the end, when given the opportunity to either partake in our cultural success or continue to gnaw on the gruel of resentment, I think that they will come over. Religion is a malleable support system, it justifies values and attitudes previousley determined, it does not dictate them.

Then how do you explain their antagonism to the West when we were the ones who were politically, militarily etc. inferior?

Michael, I dislike diplomacy for the same reason Orrin does -- it means you've sold off part of the farm before you start.

However, I am less opposed to cynical manipulation of dumb clucks.

Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to understand that the religion is the enemy.

I attribute it to the background that in other ways probably provides most of the stiffness in his spine -- his Texas upbringing.

I grew up among people like him, too, and they have this imperviously simple faith that anyone who acknowledges God must be good at bottom.

I tend to think exactly the opposite, but that's neither here nor there. These guys are not good at bottom, but Bush treats them as if they are.

And that's where anti-religion tips you over into idiocy. Europe's future is Islamic, not secular. As a Darwinist I'd think that would be enough for you to judge secularism a failure.

Harry -- I think you're confusing "Islam" with "Arab". Although there are some Islamic non-Arab countries on the outskirts of the Arab world who are trying by "more Arab than thou" our problem really is with the Arab world, not the Islamic world.

Maybe, David, but I don't think so.

If Muslims really were shocked, horrified and even just peeved about the "hijacking" of their religion of peace, you'd think there'd be some outward sign of it.

Of course, the vast majority of Muslims are inert. Probably only a small minority of kooks think that a few bombs are going to bring down western society. But almost all the rest seem to take a quiet pleasure in watching the kooks try.

I am reminded of a Tarzan movie in which a line of naked Africans (presumably, naked Los Angelenos in non-costume) that streched from one end of the horizon to the other charged the bwanas, who mowed them down with a machine gun.

This must have been received as entertainment at the time and was revelatory, wasn't it?

Times change. I don't think an audience of Americans would sit quietly through such a scene again.

We can hope for a similar evolution among the Muslims, but I, at least, cannot point to any evidence for it yet. (Rare, honorable exceptions excepted.)

Harry:

Why? Zulu was on AMC last night and we watched it.

Harry -- They don't like us and I have no problem with that. First, I'm not sure how much I like us. Second, when they like us, we will have failed.

But only a few Arabs (with some Persians and Pashtuns) are blowing us up. They don't need to like us, but they'd better fear us.

That he understands this while Kerry worries about us being liked makes Bush is the only rational choice in the Presidential election.

And it's also why we need to treat the attack on Spain as an attack on the US.