I Love the Kerry Healthcare Plan

I love it, love it, love it. I want everyone to have affordable/free health insurance so bad I can taste it. But as I read more on the topic and observe nations like Canada and the UK who are trying to provide it, I have to admit to myself that it's just not possible. It just goes against human nature.

Note this post by Sydney Smith comparing Kerry's plan to a similar plan that Tennessee already runs:

The program's generosity, however, did not include doctors and hospitals, whose reimbursement rates are so low that seeing Tenncare patients is a losing proposition. As a result, access to care is a very real problem for Tenncare patients, some of whom have to drive 40 miles just to see a doctor. (And keep in mind, those are mountain miles.) And what about the children? Only 19% of pediatricians in Tennessee accept Tenncare, the lowest participation rate of any state in the union. As a result, over one-third of children enrolled in Tenncare have trouble finding a doctor. That's a very real problem. And one that's much more serious and damaging to a child's health than lack of insurance.

Under Kerry's plan, fully half of American families would have their children covered. The only way to pay for this is to demand that prices be kept low. Why do we still think that we can dictate prices and not suffer the consequences? We might not notice for a few years, until the supply of medical students dries up when kids figure out that doctors can't make enough money to compensate for the long years of study and the high student loan payments. Or when doctors start to retire early or even change fields because they can't pay their medical malpractice insurance and still put food on the table.

As a former supporter of single-payer health insurance plans, it pains me to admit that I was wrong. Not so much wrong, as ignorant of the ways of the world and guilty of wishfull thinking.

Update:

"This is just the typical garbage and propaganda from the drug manufacturers," says Carlton Carl, spokesman for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. "There's absolutely no disincentive for making vaccines. American companies don't do it for the same reason they're sending jobs overseas--because it increases their profits."

Maybe someone could explain to Mr. Carl that not making a profit is a disincentive.

Multilateralism in Action

'If this isn't genocide, then what on earth is?' says Lord Alton in his report on the situation in Darfur. And while we patiently pursue resolution after resolution at the UN:

We joined a group of 17 women sitting in the shade of a tree, drinking coffee. Most were widows, and most had also lost fathers, brothers and sons. They need firewood for cooking and grass for their animals, and are thus forced to go beyond the camp. They had all, without exception, been the victims of attack and rape by the Janjaweed. Although they are clearly traumatised by the daily risks they run, they speak philosophically about it: "If our men go out, they die. If we go, we are raped. That's the choice."

70,000 are already dead with a million more herded into camps that are patrolled by the very Janjaweed militiamen that want to kill them. Isn't this a great opportunity for the EU to step in and, while the US is occupied with Iraq and presidential elections, prove that multilateralism means something more that moral indifference? Come on Europe! show us how you don't need that overbearing American leadership to be a force for good in the world. You know, like you did in Bosnia and Rawanda. Oh wait... well, third time's a charm right?

If you liked Kerry's comment about Mary Cheney,

then you'll love the response Frank J suggests for Bush:

"There are a lot of problems in America that need to be dealt with," Bush said, "Such as obesity, as seen with John Edwards’s fat cow wife. And there is the problem of mental illness, such as with Kerry's own wacked-out crazy wife. And we must stop those who may take advantage of the insane by marrying them for their billions."

"Finally, there is the problem of promiscuity," Bush continued, "as displayed by Kerry's own slut daughter - you know, the one you saw wearing that see-through dress to a film festival.

Just, you know, personalizing the issues by pointing out something everyone already knows anyway so what's the big deal.

Update from Jonah:

But what if George W. Bush had said "divorce is a difficult issue. On one hand we all think society is healthier when marriages are healthier. On the other hand, we understand that good and decent people sometimes have irreconcilable differences. I'm sure if you asked John Kerry's first wife, she would tell you that there are no easy answers..." Or if he had said, "I'm sure if you asked John Kerry's lovely daughters whether it was easy for them to cope with their parents' divorce..." Or what if Bush had said, "America is a land of great opportunity for immigrants. I'm sure John Kerry's second wife Teresa, who was born in Africa, would agree..."

Update from Verifrank:

Oh! One other thing - Mary Cheney is a Lesbian. I know cause Barney Frank and Jim McGreevy told me so. It's not that we didnt know, or that she didnt know, but we just thought you'd like to know, but only if it changes how you think of the Cheney family, if it changes how you feel about John Kerry, then you are clearly a bigot.

Bush is the idealist and Kerry the conservative

Must read in the London Times by another Democrat for Bush. I'm not quite as liberal as this woman, but she sums up my feelings on this election nearly perfectly:

I have registered as a Democrat because I want to put the party on notice. Should it lose the election, an open question at present, I want it to look at the numbers of Bush-supporting Democrats and draw the appropriate lesson about its unconvincing foreign policy. Perhaps then I will be able to support the party in 2008...

On foreign policy, Bush is the idealist and Kerry the conservative, afraid to disturb the status quo. I've never abandoned my belief in human rights and democracy.

Yes, exactly. And it just happens to be Bush who is championing those beliefs this time around. To see the Democrats abandon those beliefs in hopes of hurting Bush is just appalling. To underline the hypocrisy of Kerry's on again off again Iraq policy:

Kerry voted against the 1991 Gulf war, despite his present blather about the United Nations, global tests and international alliances. There could not have been a broader coalition then. Had Kerry been president, Saddam would not only be in power today; he would be richer, more powerful and running Kuwait.

Update: Times stories don't stick around for foreigners, so I'm linking to QandO's lengthy excerpt and commentary for future reference.

NY State Lawmakers for Election Fraud

Via Jim Geraghty:

New York's Republican governor blames Democratic lawmakers for stalling reforms that could have stopped a reported 46,000 voters from being registered at the same time in New York City and Florida.

Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 to give states federal funding for election commissions, registration systems and vote- count regulation. Each state must adopt a version of the act with specific processes in order to receive the federal aid.
New York's Republican- controlled Senate and Democrat-controlled Assembly passed different versions of the act in February. A bipartisan committee was convened to write a final version of the act, but the committee has been unable to reach a consensus.

The state comptroller's office has $68 million waiting to be used for a centralized list that would identify voters registered in multiple states and counties. That money cannot be used until New York passes the reforms.

Geraghty comments: "Keep at it, small-minded politicians seeking to maximize voter fraud and double voting. Go ahead. See how much power any official has when nobody believes the results on Election Day."

Which reminds me that I never linked to this great Vodkapundit screed:

If Drudge has it right, then the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to do its damnedest to turn our fine nation into a banana republic... Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.

Guardian gets feedback

The Guardian has posted some responses from Americans regarding it's attempt to influence the presidential elections. As expected, the more maniacal the raving, the more likely to be published (unless it was supportive of the initiative). Here's my favorite:

My dear, beloved Brits, I understand the Guardian is sponsoring a service where British citizens write to Americans to advise them on how to vote. Thank heavens! I was adrift in a sea of confusion and you are my beacon of hope!

Feel free to respond to this email with your advice. Please keep in mind that I am something of an anglophile, so this is not confrontational. Please remember, too, that I am merely an American. That means I am not very bright. It means I have no culture or sense of history. It also means that I am barely literate, so please don't use big, fancy words.

Set me straight, folks!

Do you think the Guardianistas get the joke? Maybe they think they've finally found a reasonable and introspective American.

Kerry Thinks We're All Idiots,

the only question now: Is he right? Kerry himself is claiming Bush will bring back the draft if reelected. Isn't he supposed to leave that sort of sleazy fear-mongering to his underlings? It's especially lame considering there is only one candidate for president who has suggested mandatory national service. (Hint: It's not Bush)

The allegedly non-partisan Rock the Vote is sensationalizing the issue, but they do link to Alliance for Security, a site with a pretty good explanation of the issue. Unfortunately, the rest AFS is full a hysterical draft-baiting.

Update: Seems Kerry's campaign also thinks he should avoid the sleaze. They're backing off a bit:

Kerry's reference to the draft was a "gaffe" only insofar as the candidate himself wasn't supposed to mention it. The Democrats, playing as always on the fears of the ignorant, are promoting the draft hoax for all they are worth among unsophisticated voters. But because the idea is so ludicrous, they didn't intend for Kerry to make the claim himself, on the record. However, as so often happens with Kerry, the draft line just slipped out.

Novelists for Election Fraud

I originally went to this Slate article to read Roger L. Simon's entry, but also found this little tidbit from author Nicole Krauss (3rd entry from the bottom:

I'm voting for Kerry. I've just discovered that, through some unsurprising accident of the Board of Elections, I'm actually registered to vote in two different counties. So I'm considering voting for him twice. I really think it's not alarmist to say that if Bush is reelected to another four years, it may be the end of life as we know it.

Lots of other fun quotes over there too. In the very first entry, the author deigns to acknowledge that Bush is probably not the anti-christ.

Yet Another Great Steyn Piece

When a man keeps telling you it doesn’t count unless the French and the UN are on board, he’s either a fool or a liar — because no serious person can spend 15 minutes on this issue without understanding that the French state at every level, and quasi-state pillars such as TotalFinaElf, were to all intents and purposes Saddam’s concubines, and that the UN Oil-for-Fraud programme had been transformed into the regime’s most reliable Weapon of Mass Destruction.

If John Kerry is elected, let's hope he's a liar.

My letter to the Guardian

Dear Editor:

I see that your paper has a project to influence the vote in Clark Co, Ohio. I cannot imagine why you feel American voters would be swayed by your arrogant presumption. Since WWII Europeans have been acting as if there is something in the water over here that gives Americans prosperity and a strong military. You ignore the choices/sacrifices we have made regarding taxes, welfare benefits and military spending. Europeans have made different choices. If we allowed Europeans to vote in our elections then we would be just like Europe: weak and dependent on a power we disdain for our very security.

Sorry, but the American President is not President of the World. If your readers feel their needs aren't being met, they should start by writing letter to their own politicians, before concerning themselves with ours.

Sincerely,

See Tim Blair for more on the topic and for where to send your letter.

President of the World?

This experiment by the Guardian is really thought-provoking:

In the spirit of the Declaration of Independence's pledge to show "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind", we have come up with a unique way for non-Americans to express your views on the policies and candidates in this election to some of the people best placed to decide its outcome. It's not quite a vote, but it's a chance to influence how a very important vote will be cast. Or, at the very least, make a new penpal...It works like this. By typing your email address into the box on this page, you will receive the name and address of a voter in Clark County, Ohio.

The Guardian reader should then write to this Ohio voter and make the foreign case for whichever candidate, although, given the Guardians leftward tilt, the goal is to support Kerry. The Guardian will publish a selection of letters on Oct. 20th. I wonder whether any will support Bush.

My first reaction to this was "Buzz off. Don't you people have your own candidates to vote for?" And I'm still leaning in that direction. But it makes me wonder. Does America have so much sway over the lives of non-Americans that they feel disenfranchised by not being able to vote for the US president?

I still can't work up much sympathy for Europeans on this matter. Consider that the EU has a larger population than the US and a comparable GDP. If Europeans wanted to be players, they could be. They act as if there is something in the water over here that gives us prosperity and a strong military. They ignore the choices/sacrifices we have made regarding taxes, welfare benefits and military spending.

Sorry, but POTUS is not President of the World. If the Euros feel their needs aren't being met, they should start by writing letter to their own politicians, before concerning themselves with ours.

(via Little Green Footballs)

Update: I don't know why the Guardian makes the pretense of neutrality when describing this experiment. All three example letters from prominent Britons are no-holds-barred slams against Bush. My favorite quote, from Richard Dawkins, a "professor of the public understanding of science"(?) at Oxford University:

Don't be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn't vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans traveling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent.

Update: The Guardian devotes a whole page to how Brits can contact the US media, but there is no readily apparent way to contact the Guardian regarding this story. Hmmm. "Here, stupid Americans, listen to our wise advice. Oh, you have an opinion? Not interested."

Update: Tim Blair to the rescue. Here's a list of e-mail addresses to help you offer your opinion to the good folks at the Guardian.

Fallujans turn against foreign fighters

According to the Washington Post:

Local insurgents in the city of Fallujah are turning against the foreign fighters who have been their allies in the rebellion that has held the U.S. military at bay in parts of Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland, according to Fallujah residents, insurgent leaders and Iraqi and U.S. officials.

Relations are deteriorating as local fighters negotiate to avoid a U.S.-led military offensive against Fallujah, while foreign fighters press to attack Americans and their Iraqi supporters.

The Iraqis are trying to do what they think is best for Iraq, while the foreign jihadis are using the Iraqis as props in their apocalyptic fantasty. Little wonder its not working out between them.

And if you think its' a bummer to have democracy "forced" on your country:

Among the tensions dividing the locals and the foreigners is religion. People in Fallujah, known as the city of mosques, have chafed at the stern brand of Islam that the newcomers brought with them. The non-Iraqi Arabs berated women who did not cover themselves head-to-toe in black -- very rare in Iraq -- and violently opposed local customs rooted in the town's more mystical religious tradition.

Update : Shannon Love at Chicago Boyz expands on the thought:

The locals might imagine that they hate the Coalition and the provisional government, but a few days or weeks of living under the rule of the insurgents seems to provide a stark reality check. The insurgents are thugs and religious extremists, who terrorize and extort the local population and eventually draw down retaliation from the Coalition. The insurgents lose the struggle for hearts and minds through their own brutality.

Flagwaving Nazis? Yep, that's us.

Also from Carol Gould's article, An American in London:

Just the other day I had a tongue-lashing from an old acquaintance about the ‘appalling flags the Americans put outside their homes, like Nazis all over again.’

This flagophobia from Europeans has been bothering me for a long time. Americans are supposed to understand that flags conjure up for Europeans visions of Nazi Germany. Fine. I'm a child of multi-culturalism. I understand and accept their unique experience. What bothers me is that they cannot seem to do the same for us. It seems impossible for Europeans to understand that, for Americans, flags do not represent fascism. As a matter of fact, for Americans, flags represent the spirit of a country that got up off its collective behind to cross oceans and defeat fascism.

If Europeans are as worldly as they would like us to believe, why do they have such a hard time with this simple concept?

An American in London

Speaking of brownshirts:

Exactly one month ago today, I was traveling on a London bus when a well-dressed woman boarded with her equally-respectable son in his school uniform. Ahead of her was an elderly American woman, who said, ‘I beg your pardon, I didn’t mean to bang into you.’ This prompted a tirade from the Englishwoman -- let’s call her Lady E -- that resembled a verbal assault by a brownshirt against a hapless Jewish pedestrian in 1933. The American -- call her Mrs. A -- sat down and cowered as the tirade continued: ‘I rejoice every time I hear of another American soldier dying! You people all deserve to die in another 9/11. You are destroying the world.’

Read it all for more hair-curling stories of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism including a number from before 9/11 and the mythical "squandering of goodwill".

Update: Perry de Havilland from Samizdata defends the Brits. I suspected that Ms. Gould, running with wealthy, artistic crowd as it seems she does, might run into quite a bit more outspoken anti-Americanism than your average tourist. Such folk do seems to think that not only are they entitled to their opinions, but you are entitled to their opinion as well.

Presidential Debates II

Kerry just said the sanctions worked. Oh My God.
Now he's taking election advise from King Abdullah of Jordan.
"They've always wanted this to be an American effort" Well, God forbid.

Bush is much better than last week. He's talking about how the right decisions are often not popular in Europe. Still, he seems angry too often and a little hopped up.

Good answer on the draft from Bush. More effective and technically advanced equipment required fewer, but better trained people. Bush just stepped all over the moderator to defend the honor of Britain and Poland. I can't believe Kerry keeps dissing our allies. He must feel this works strategically. He's done it far too many times for it to be a mistake.

Good answer from Bush on why he's spending so much money. Recession, war, raising taxes during a recession leads to depression.

Kerry's answer on not raising taxes on the earning less than $200,000 was good. Bush is calling him a liar. He's probably right. But now Kerry implies no one in Missouri could make over $200,000. Hmmm.

Is Bush warming up? Good answer on the Supreme Court nomination question. Funny, likeable Bush peeked through. Too bad it is almost over.

Kerry worked Vietnam into the answer to the abortion question. Jeez. Abortion rights will help prevent aids?

I wish Bush would bring up the bribing of the French and the UN. Kindof hard to build that global coalition if you don't have 100 billion in oil contracts to to buy off the French, Germans and Russians.

Bad last question. Bush gets to talk about Bush's mistakes, then Kerry gets to talk about Bush's mistakes. Shouldn't Kerry have talked about Kerry's mistakes?

I don't know who "won", but watching these debates is making me more comfortable with my choice of Bush. Kerry is explaining his positions (or lack of positions) clearly. And, at least on foreign policy, I just disagree. He disses our real allies in favor of the French. He complains that we're providing all the troops, but he has got to know that France and Germany couldn't provide more than a token force if they wanted to. Of course, they have made it perfectly clear that they don't want to. Yet still he yammers on about bringing our "allies" back. And let's not even get into the whole "Where's Osama" thing?

Must Read

If you haven't seen this yet, you aren't reading enough blogs. But I just got around to reading Bill Whittle's essay on deterrence and you won't be sorry if you take the time to read it. It's hard to excerpt because its's all so good but here's one:

Terrorists don’t seem to be too afraid of stern language. But I do notice, that while the fear of death does not seem to deter these people, the fact of being dead does significantly decrease their operational effectiveness. That’s a casual observation on my part – no real Harvard study to back it up. More of a hunch, really.

and regarding the whole "Why aren't we looking for Osama?" line of bull:

The freaking invasion of a Muslim country by the Great Satan, and this new Caliph, the Leader of the Oppressed, cannot bring himself to shoot a crummy VHS in front of a white wall condemning this outrage? This glory-seeking egomaniac, the New Saladin riding the White Horse across the desert, who practically put out a 10 DVD commemorative set every time the US so much as hiccupped, is now suddenly silent, and has been for three years?

You may call that a Terror Mastermind. I call it a greasy wet spot on the wall of a cave in Afghanistan.

The Right may have digital brownshirts, but the left seem to have the real thing.

Jonah's on a role today. Here's another, less ranty piece that says what I've been trying to figure out how to say:

To his critics, it seems, Bush's error is that he offered too many reasons to go to war, except when he offered too few. When the news is that no WMDs have been found, WMDs become Bush's only reason to go to war. Back when the WMD angle had yet to be verified, the problem was that Bush offered too many rationales. Which is it?

Watching the TV news and listening to NPR lately, I was beginning to think I imagined all those complaints about Bush throwing out everything but the kitchen sink as a reason to go to war. Or maybe I thought of all those reasons, or read them in the National Review, but Bush never gave them publicly. But no:

In major speeches he touted the importance of democratizing the Middle East. Administration officials pointed out that Saddam was the only world leader to applaud 9/11, and that he was a major source of funding for suicide bombers in Israel. They argued that removing Saddam would have a positive impact on the peace process. President Bush made a masterful case to the United Nations that, in the post-9/11 world, the world body could not afford to let a dictator — one who had gassed his own people and invaded a neighbor — flout its countless resolutions with impunity.
These rationales don't add up to 23, but who cares if they do? What important decisions have you ever made in your life that have depended on a single variable. We don't buy cars for a single reason. (Oh, it's blue! I'll take it!) Why should we launch a preemptive war for a single reason?

Exactly.

Good rant from Jonah this morning:

I'm not saying there are no good arguments against the war. I am saying that many of you don't care about the war. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore had conducted this war, you would be weeping joyously about Iraqi children going to school and women registering to vote. If this war had been successful rather than hard, John Kerry would be boasting today about how he supported it — much as he did every time it looked like the polls were moving in that direction.

It's this obvious opportunism that makes me roll my eyes most times I hear Kerry speak. You know he's not sincere.

Saddam and the French Connection

Amazing info about just how deep inside Saddam's pocket were the French:

Tariq Aziz, the former Iraqi deputy prime minister, told the ISG that the "primary motive for French co-operation" was to secure lucrative oil deals when UN sanctions were lifted. Total, the French oil giant, had been promised exploration rights. Iraqi intelligence officials then "targeted a number of French individuals that Iraq thought had a close relationship to French President Chirac," it said, including two of his "counselors" and spokesman for his re-election campaign.

And here's what Kerry said about getting France and Germany to join the coalition:

If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, "What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?" we'd be in a stronger place today.

Speaking of coalition of the bribed... Is Kerry suggesting we were outbid in the competition for French support?

Than there's this gem from Tony Blair:

"Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren't’t working," he said.

I hope so too. But I doubt it. I was stunned to hear Kerry saying Bush should have let the inspectors (and thereby, the sanctions) continue for an unspecified amount of time. In the first presidential debate, Kerry said "We had Saddam Hussein trapped". Yes. Unfortunately, we had the whole population of Iraq trapped with him. Doesn't anyone else remember how evil the US used to be for insisting on sanctions? All the poor, starving Iraqi children and whatnot. The situation was untenable. It seems that the plight of the Iraqi children was compelling only when the solution was to drop the sanctions and let the French collect on their oil contracts. When Bush came up with another solution(Iraqi freedom from sanctions and from Saddam), suddenly we're supposed to believe all those happy, healthy, kite-flying Iraqi moppets were benefiting greatly from the humanitarian sanctions regime.

The Liberal Case for Bush

An interesting column at Tech Central Station got me thinking:

Even after the Vietnam War -- at least when Clinton was president -- the Democrats had the right temperament for guns-and-butter liberalism abroad. The intervention against Slobo's regime in Serbia wasn't slammed as a "unilateral war." It was the Peace Corps with muscles.

But when George W. Bush implemented the Clinton Administration's policy of regime-change in Iraq, democratic nation-building morphed into "imperialism." Overthrowing a totalitarian regime was deemed "reckless." What mattered most was "stability." Just as September 11 taught George W. Bush that liberals had a point all along, liberals started to sound like... conservatives.

I had a feeling that maybe I haven't changed as much as the parties have.

But most [liberal activists] haven't even noticed that George W. Bush has turned Henry Kissinger's noxious "realist" game on its head. He couldn't have made it more clear when he gave the commencement address at the Air Force Academy in June 2004:

"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression, so I have changed this policy."

There you have it. This is exactly what liberals have demanded for decades. And now that Bush veers to the left he is jeered by the left for being "reckless," "extremist," "imperialist," and even "fascist." That's precisely the reason some of the left's most stout-hearted members, most famously Christopher Hitchens himself, ditched their old comrades to forge an alliance with the neoconservative right.

Read it all for more reasons for good liberals to vote Republican this year.

Check out this article from the LA Times. It's full of amusing observations like this one:

The European Union wants to strengthen the continent's role in world affairs — some say to complement, others suggest to contain, U.S. ambitions. Seventy-one percent of Europeans polled by the German Marshall Fund believe that the EU should become a superpower. However, such aspirations appear unlikely to become reality: 47% withdrew their support for the idea if it would mean higher military spending.

How do you suppose the European define "Superpower" if a strong military isn't part of the definition? Maybe they just intend to use the United States military (aka NATO) if they run into any trouble on their way to superpower status.

And how about this:

The notion that the U.S. is the "world's policeman" by default angers many and illuminates animosities from regions long suspicious of U.S. policy. Seventy-two percent of Mexicans surveyed by Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas rejected the idea that Washington should be the sole law-and-order power.

I bet a lot of Americans would agree with this sentiment. America shouldn't have to be the sole law-and-order power. Listening to Mexicans complain about this is like mom listening to the kids say "Who does mom think she is picking up our toys all the time and doing our laundry. Jeez." I'm sure we'd be happy to have the EU or the UN pulling their own weight. But see the first quote for just one reason why this isn't going to happen.

(via Allah)

Bunker Busters

KERRY:

"Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.

You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation."

It's moments like this when I think maybe I've been a Republican all along and just didn't know it. This was one of Kerry's clearest moments. There is no nuance here. But I totally disagree.

I can see the Iranians saying "You have nukes, why shouldn't we?' But that's the Iranians. Kerry wants to be the American president. Does he think America can't be trusted not to randomly nuke anyone who annoys us? Does he have no thoughts on why our security situation might be a little different from that of any other county on earth? This isn't the first time I've wondered whose side Kerry is on. It's as if he wants to be president of the world. I want a president who is unambigously the President of the United States.

And I love how horrified he is by the fact that "...we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using." Uh, yeah. Does he think we don't contemplate using the nuclear weapons we have now? If the US or one of our allies (Israel leaps to mind) was facing an existential threat, I think we would do whatever it took. Wouldn't it be nice to have a range of options that would allow us to target, oh say... Iran's deeply buried nuclear facilities instead of Tehran and all the innocent people living there?