Former President Ronald Reagan had many proud Democratic Senators backing him up. I believe that President George Bush will have his share as well. When it comes down to it, there is a reality every sane person in our Congress and Senate can not ignore. Our nation is at war with terrorism and someone with a weak record like the one Kerry (think Dukakis) has can not handle the job as this nation's President. He is and never was a leader in the Senate, let alone this nation. The insane lean on Kerry’s Vietnam record as proof he is strong enough with national security issues. Facts show, he was in the army for 4 months and actually left duty early, then turned on his fellow soldiers and country by claiming we were baby killers (and the like). That is no hero and shows he is not strong on national security-he turned on his nation in a time of war. He showed this to be a pattern as he voted against the first Gulf War and then voted…begrudgingly against the second Gulf War. They say he can create jobs, um Federal jobs? I am sure that would be the case, but those don’t count because they take away from the economy by giving us a huge tax burden and stymies growth in the private sector. Besides, our economy is booming now, low unemployment, less taxes, high spending, etc. Can’t deny that, figures and facts are there, except in Kerry’s speeches. Plain and simple, any sane Democrat who longs for the days of Scoop Jackson to return have no choice but to back Bush.

There are alot of Democrats that will vote for Bush for this reason. National Security. Terrorism is not a law enforcement problem. The United Nations is not aggressive enough to fight it. Like Senator Miller said in his great book, The Democratic Party of today is controlled by to many liberal special interests groups. This was not always true. Presidents' F.D.R., Truman, Kennedy, Johnson were very strong on National Security. If Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson were alive today he would be enemy #1 of Seattle Democrats. (Of course he would think the Bush Adminisration is to wimpy with North Korea, and Syria.) Kerry has to try and appease Howard Dean's followers and it might be his undoing.

The fact of the matter, gentlemen, is that terrorism is a law enforcement problem. Did the US Army invade Buffalo? No, the FBI arrested a group of suspected terrorists and broke up an Al Qaeda cell. Has the US Army invaded Spain after 11-M? Have Spanish troops stormed the cities of Spain? No and no. Of course, sometimes military force is the best way to deal with terrorism, as we saw with the toppling of the Taliban and the present hunt for Osama Bin Laden. So terrorism is also a problem for the military. Back in 1998, I personally thought we should have invaded the Sudan. Let's put it this way: terrorism is a unique problem that cannot be dealt with adequately unless every tool at our disposal is utilized. This means mobilizing the military, intelligence agencies, and law enforcement agencies to counter the terrorist threat. To scoff at the usefulness of law enforcement tactics and rely on the military alone in the war on terrorism would be to weaken our own defenses.

We hear so much about Republican criticism and Democratic haranguing on Bush’s foreign and domestic policies. But believe it or not, “Democrats for Bush” movement is alive and well, apparantly.

It looks like a few moderate Democrats out there and around here want to make sure the national secuirty debate goes beyond “Wage peace,” and “Impeach Bush.”

Gary M
Please be serious. Your straw men are silly. Nobody on the right rejects the use of law enforcement approaches when appropriate. If they did, their would be no screaming about Ashcroft employing the same tools previously used against organized crime to go after terror cells.

The problem with an exclusive law enforcement focus occurs when State sponsorship and State sanctuary exist. Effective law enforcement is the tool of choice within countries where the rule of law exists and countries recognize their obligations under these laws. But this approach is an utter failure when it comes to countries that employ or support terror as a part of their national policies.

Even our own law enforcement approaches need reform to succeed. Is it anything other than sheer folly for the Justice Department to prevent dissemination of information presented to grand juries to other agencies like the CIA
(as current grand jury rules require) when prosecuting the members of terror cells that have links to others within and outside of the country?

I'll bet there are quite a few more Democrats for Bush this year than there are Republicans for Kerry.