Here are some questions I’ve received since the website went ‘live’ and my responses to them:  (Please keep them coming!)

Bush went to war by using intelligence he knew to be false.  What you term Kerry’s “flipflop” on Iraq was based on old intelligence.  What do you say to that?

(First of all, it is premature to definitively say that the intelligence was in fact flawed…the WMD’s may yet be found.  But, for the sake of argument I’ll buy your premise. )

I would point out that the intelligence was not proven to be inaccurate until we actually had control of Iraq.  We would have no idea...still...if we hadn't acted.  Having WMD in the hands of terrorists is unacceptable.

The intelligence Kerry based his decisions and words on was the exact same

intelligence Bush and Clinton/Gore and France and Germany and Britain and

China and Russia and Turkey and Iran and everyone else accepted as true and

accurate.  (Recall that the pre-war anti-war argument was not that the

weapons didn't exist, it was that inspections should be given more time.)

If the intelligence was false Hussein himself was given 12 years to prove

that the weapons didn't exist and was, in fact, given yet another chance

just prior to the war to come clean.  He didn't take it. Is that Bush's

fault or America's fault?  Hussein shot at US planes nearly every day for 12

years, openly defied UN Inspectors, expelled UN inspectors, violated (many,

many, many times) the terms of the cease-fire from Gulf War I, attempted to

assassinate a US president, funded suicide bombers, etc.  This is not even

mentioning what he did to his own people which would require another lengthy

blog to document.  So Kerry, like he has done on virtually every issue, is

trying to have it both ways.  That is not leadership.

I think Bush's approach was cavalier and has hurt our foreign policy; additionally I'd like him to admit he was wrong (which I don't think he's done yet).

What does Bush have to apologize for?  If Hussein didn't have WMD's he had dozens of opportunities to come clean, including a final opportunity just prior to the start of the war.  Seems blame would be better placed at his feet...not Bush's or America's for believing what every intelligence agency in the world believed.  We know (meaning the entire world) he had WMD's (he used them on his own people and the Iranians), we know (meaning the entire world) he invaded Kuwait, we know (meaning the entire world) that the US led coalition drove him out of Kuwait, we know (meaning the entire world) that the terms of the end of that war dictated that he disarm and that UN inspectors would be allowed to inspect and insure he did that.  We know (meaning the entire world) that he did not let inspectors do their jobs and in fact kicked them out of the country (with no consequence by the way -- see Clinton years).  We know (meaning the entire world) that when we forced the issue and put inspectors back in Iraq, Hussein would still not cooperate or confirm the destruction of the WMD's. 

So, the question is...In a post 9/11 world do we do nothing when a murderous dictator (see 500k to 3million dead Iraqis depending on who's counting) who has (had?) WMD's, defies UN resolutions on a daily basis for the better part of a decade with no consequence, financially supports homicide bombers, has ties to Al Qaeda (yes, contrary to what Dan Rather or Richard Clarke might say, Iraq at the very least harbored Al Qaeda terrorists and it's highly likely they did a whole lot more), etc.?  Or, do our words and the words of the UN (which is a joke of an organization but that's another editorial altogether) finally have some meaning, ensuring that others think twice before doing the same thing (see Gadhafi)? 

So if Kerry is not the best nominee who would you choose for the Democrats? 

Not sure who you lefties should nominate but wouldn't it be refreshing to support a candidate that didn't run from, parse, obfuscate, etc. their own record?  Like Bush or hate him, at least we all know where he stands.  Kerry's positions change depending on audience and political wind. 

I sincerely wish the Dems had chosen someone else, someone with sincerity

and integrity so there could be a real debate.  Someone with true conviction

on anything.  Unfortunately in their haste to nominate someone 'electable'

they chose someone just the opposite.  Kerry won't even stand up and

explain his own voting record.  Frankly, the idea that he thinks he can

become President of the US without answering tough questions and/or explain his own record in a straightforward manner should trouble everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike.