If ever there was reason to give everything in your retirement account to the Bush re-election, it is Kerry's latest AP interview. Forget the nonsense about judges and abortion. The real trouble is his comments on an Iraq exit strategy. For instance, he says:

"I've heard some people say, well, what's the message? What's he doing? The message is clear, folks: We're going to make America stronger at home by being fiscally responsible, investing in health care and education, becoming energy independent, and we're going to make ourselves stronger in the world by restoring America's respect and influence with a better foreign policy. It's that simple."

On exiting he says: "It will not be like Vietnam. I will get our troops home from Iraq with honor and with the interests of our country properly protected...It will not take long to do what is necessary. I'm not going to give you a specific date, but I'll tell you that I have a plan and I will put that plan in place."

A couple of days ago, to reporters on his plane: "You have to give the president some room to get things done, but if he doesn't do what he has to do...It's a very difficult thing, but I think the president has to lead. Really lead."

What is obvious about this is that he actually has thought this answer out and is making it his Iraq policy. He is going to be the candiate with an "Exit Strategy". Bush is committed to seeing the situation through, while Kerry will be the candidate who will get us out. It should be obvious to most everyone that the president isn't going to get even close to evenhanded reporting on Iraq. Kerry will allow his minions to portray Iraq as a quagmire and another Vietnam, and he'll continue to hammer on "failed plans", "misleading on WMD's", etc. I imagine the terrorists are praying for death, 72 virgins, and Kerry's election.

First, his notion of respect and influence means people (France, Germany, and Russia) like us. He obviously is ignoring, overlooking, or oblivious to the oil-for-food fiasco and the countries (France, Germany, and Russia) that were neck deep in the corruption. I don't know which is the most dangerous of the three, but clearly all three show gross incomeptence, to quote Nancy Pelosi. Note to Senator Kerry, allies don't privately tell you that they'll support you, then publicly vote against you, embarrass you, and lobby other nations on the security council to vote against you.

Second, the fact that he is more concerned with how we are getting out of Iraq is most troubling. For all his positions on Iraq and the war on terror, he has never talked of winning. The only thing he has offered is a way for us to leave. We cannot hope to be safer if we don't win the war on terror. Notice also how he ranks health care and education equal to safety. He really doesn't think terrorism is the greatest threat we face.

But what Kerry is not saying and is equally frightening, is that this is really a portent of his foreign policy. This is clearly a return to Clintonian foreign policy of reluctance to use ground troops and a preference to wage war from 30,000 feet. By this, he is saying that he will not engage the enemy where they live, that he will not go after those that harbor terrorists. He will not send troops into what he calls "death zones". Does he really think that is what Iraq is? I believe that he does.

The problem with Kerry's analysis of President Bush is that the president has lead. Leadership means precisely making the tough decision, even when those decisions are not popular, and it means showing fortitude in the face of obstacles. Kerry's idea of leadership apparently is not taking risks, and worrying more about what others think of you. And it will be impossible for us to leave with honor and our interests protected unless we leave a stable and democratic Iraq. Doesn't he understand that?

For those beating the drums for retreat from Iraq, open up a textbook. In December 1944, three years after Pearl Harbor, we were bogged down in the Philippines, had just begun bombing Japan, and had what appeared to be years of warfare ahead of us. Worse, our toughest fighting, Iwo, Okinawa, and the naval battles and kamikazes were still ahead. With the invasion set for November 1, 1945, the end seemed nowhere near and knowledge of the Manhattan Project was top secret. In Europe, we still had yet to cross into Germany, we were fighting for our lives in the Ardennes where troops were wearing summer uniforms in winter and we were still bogged down in Italy. While it looked like we would win, the date appeared nowhere in sight. Nobody was calling for an "exit strategy".

Throughout WW2, there was always one plan, one strategy. It was total victory. So far, Kerry has only commented on the present situation in Iraq, and now has offered an exit strategy. We don't need an exit strategy. We need Iraq as a base for future anti-terrorist activities and a model to the Arab world what is possible. Iraq is as vital to winning the war on terror as the Philippines and Italy were to victory in WW2. Imagine if FDR told the American public that immediately after winning, whenever we do, we're going to go in to Germany and Japan, give them billions in relief, rebuild their countries, and democratize them in the hopes they will become allies and trade partners.

But that is precisely what Bush is being attacked for doing. And let's be honest, we were never on Hitler's to do list, and as far as Japan was concerned, thay just wanted us out of the Pacific. Oddly, that has a familiar ring to it. Kerry has no intentions of winning the war, offereing a plan on winning, or continuing the fight. He doesn't because he doesn't think the war is that important an issue. If that isn't reason enough to empty the piggy bank and give it the Bush re-election campaign, I don't know what is.

President Bush's approval ratings are at their lowest, and yet, Kerry cannot make headway. They are still tied, will be for some time, until the public either decides to break with the president, or go with him. Neither of these has anything to do with Kerry, which for him is both good and bad. It is good for him becasue unless he makes a complete blunder, "I voted for the $87 billion...", he just has to maintain a pulse. But it is bad because there is nothing he can do to improve his status and events are completely out of his control. And here is why he is not gaining, becasue quite simply, he is not presidential.

He does not have gravitas or substance. You get the feeling watching and listening to Kerry that even he doesn't know what he believes. Other than wanting to be president, there is nothing that Kerry wants to be president for. And worse for him, he gives speeches to crowds who aren't even supporters. Any democrat could be in that exact same spot and the crowds would be identical.

Let's examine a few of Kerry's gems from the last week. Regarding the anniversary of the Brown decision, Kerry claimed that our schools are still "separate and unequal". Let's see, the democrats get almost all of campaign contributions from teachers unions. Perhaps vouchers and school choice, both with vast support among blacks, would be a good start. According to Kerry's website, "John Kerry opposes private school vouchers that will drain scarce funds from public schools."

Regarding the recent gas prices, Kerry said that America needs "a president who's fighting for the American worker, the American family at the fuel pumps, and to lower the price of gasoline in the United States." How exactly will he do that? By "fighting to...protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge"? According to his website, "We can, however, develop and deploy clean energy technologies that will make us more efficient and allow us to capitalize on domestic and renewable sources of energy." Such as? He never mentions a single source and the best, nuclear, which generates over 3/4 of France's energy, is not mentioned.

Most troubling is comments Kerry has made recently about the war in Iraq. He has called it an "extraordinarily mismanaged and ineptly prosecuted war" and he has linked the Abu Ghraib scandal to "major failures in command." Well, that's sure to boost troop morale and put the fear into the hearts of the terrorists. His constant chants about arrogant foreign policy are purposefully designed to undercut the president's ability to lead the war.


On almost every issue on Kerry's website, Kerry's position starts off something like this; "George Bush has chosen to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans...". Besides being a complete lie, he claims to be a uniter, yet this is class warfare at its finest. He is simply pitting one American against another.

I often wonder whether Kerry is serious or not. I have to believe that he gets his speeches and has to be thinking to himself, "are they gonna buy this stuff"? He continually proves again and again that he belongs nowhere near the White House.