Thanks Rad! You said it all.

I wish more people would look at the facts as objectively as you have. It doesn't takes a brain surgon to see what GWB has done, but people are going blindly to the poles on 11/2/2004.

Hopefully you will open some eyes and reach some minds.

Go Rad!

Your first point, about the terrorist attacks of 9-11, seems to imply then old Navy philosophy that "if you are at the helm and ship is hit by a torpedo, it is your fault, because it is your job to watch for threats and take evasive action if necesassy."

But this philosophy does not apply to politicians. If a ship is torpedoed and the captain survives, he will be relieved of his command. But if a nation is torpedoed, like it was on 9-11, should the president be relieved of command? Most would disagree.

This is why I'm voting for Kerry. Bush claims to be a fundamentalist Christian. If he really believes the end of the world is imminent, do you think that might affect the decisions he makes? Sure appears that way.

If you really believed that no one would read this blog, would you still post it? (rhetorical question)

The mere POSSIBILITY of his religious beliefs affecting his decisions is reason enough to vote him out of office. I'm not quite ready for Armaggedon yet.

On November 2nd, Bush will learn what it's like to be out-sourced. But I doubt any other nation will want him.

You better be ready for Armaggedon because it's coming whether you're ready or not.

I actually disagree with several reasons you give (including that the administration should have known about 9/11 before it happened (and/or, that it did know). We all know that it's very common for one hand to not know what the other hand is doing when it comes to anything, and certainly this applies to national security. We also know that sometimes things that are urgent are sometimes pre-empted by things that are even more pressing, and I believe that that's probably what happened.

As for the fact that the world hates us - much of the West hated us in the 80's, too, when Reagan was building up our defenses and the Peacenik demonstrations had millions protesting on the streets of Europe. Reagan was very unpopular with a lot of people around the world back then, but only a decade later it was quite obvious that he had done the right thing. I believe the same will be said of Bush after things get straightened out in Iraq. Btw, the vast majority of Iraq is completely peaceful, just as the vast majority of Israel is, you only hear about the very small part of the country where there is a lot of terrorism happening. Obviously it's terrible that people are dying, being beheaded, etc. I do believe that we are now fighting the terrorists in Iraq, and if they weren't attacking us there, they'd be attacking us here.

I agree Armageddon is coming, no matter who is president, and I don't believe Bush is governing with an eye to Armageddon. That's just not true. He doesn't even think about it. Btw, I am voting for GW. I think he's much stronger on defense, whereas Kerry only became someone who was "pro-defense" after 9/11. Before that he sought to block every single weapons program that came along (including all of the ones we are using today, and without which we would be using 1960's technology in Iraq and around the world).

Bush isn't the bad guy. It's all the alpha males around him, that he's not strong enough to keep in check. Primarily Cheney, but also Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al. Sadly, all these guys have never carried a gun into combat. They all want to be an arm-chair general.

Hope your string for choosing the winner ends this year ;-)

Rad:

From a purely Chinese point of view (I am from Hong Kong), it's better to have Bush in office for another 4 years, for precisely the same reasons you have listed above. ;-)

If I were an American, I'd vote for Kerry. But my vote wouldn't in any case be a swing vote, because wherever I'd live (if at all) it is a democratic strong-hold, e.g. CA, WA, MA, NY, etc.

If the world were to vote in this election, Kerry would win by a landslide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3640754.stm

You are right on it Rad..I voted for Kerry today here in NC. We have early voting this month. I spent 1968 in Nam, and we are now stuck in Iraq, thanks to Bush and company. If a man cannot admit his mistakes, he is not much of a man.........

Why should we believe a US Senator is less qualified to be President than a state Governor? Kerry should be more capable of adapting to the job than Bush was. This country is a mess, give someone else a chance!

It's a sad day in the political history of this nation when the people vote based for the candidate they dislike less, rather than for the candidate whose policy and views they truly support. Another "lesser of two evils" election.

Rad, your statement prefacing your resons, "...more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry," sums up this election very well. Ask most people that are voting for Kerry, why they are voting for him, and they will quickly list 12 different reasons why Bush is a terrible president, and not 1 why Kerry will make a good president.

This election, I excersise my right not to vote. I refuse to support any candidate who I find morally and politically repugnant. Voting for the lesser of to evils is not my idea of a true democracy.

Four more years,gains in the House and Senate, amazing.

The entries about voting against Bush instead of for Kerry are right on. Worst Democratic ticket I've witnessed.

Lets hope that our leaders get back to doing what's best for our country!!

Test.