You guys drove the car into the ditch, we're just pissed off that our own party seems to wimp out instead of calling the GOP on the disaster they have created.  We are now successfully down in the rathole of the Swift Boat lie, instead of discussing how the President seems to be engaged in delivering us to our enemies, and developing another GOP kleptocracy.

Don't confuse panic and anger.  Otherwise you will get mauled by a bobcat.

Come to think of it- how would you like to join an inland empire "Hobby-Hike".......?

This is a joke.  I do not think we ought to subject our Southern Cali fauna to GOP bites.  They might catch rabies or whatever maniacal disease the GOP leadership is cursed with.

I am in awe. That so many americans have believed the lies they have been told.

While I agree with you that neither man is a mindless puppet, I disagree with you that our national security has been enhanced by Mr.Bush's foreign policies.  My position is based to a signifcant extent by another recent conversation with my oldest brother. He pays attention to current news events more than I do and has military experience that makes some observations that he makes note worthy.  He is also studied and cautious in arriving at opinions that he expose (this, I sort of share with him, but he takes it to a higher order).
    First on the issue of being a puppet.  Even though I disagree with the positions of some politicians, I feel that them putting themselve forward as leaders is laudable and deserves more respect than we give.  Many want to criticize, but how many want to lead and suffer the arrows that leadership activity often brings in their direction?  Some politicians are craven, but the vast majority perform a valuable public service by putting themselves forward to attempt to deal with the everyday mechanisms of society.  My respect is particularly high for town and city local leaders and department heads, who often take a lot of shit for peanuts in pay and prestige.
    Now on to the issue of national security.  I respect my oldest brother and value his opinion on issues related to military service, war and national security.  His opinions are especially valuable when my own mind does not have the clarity on such issues as it often does.  My brother was used to doing covert activities during his military service so he has an understanding of how things that are sometimes out of view work.  He does not like to opine on whether a president is doing something wrong, but he raised several issue with what is happening now that seem to mirrors some of what has been written here and, to be truthful, my own feelings when I have time to turn issues over in my mind.  
    He feels that we are not adequately staffing the war in Iraq and he stated why he feels that way.  He feels that the war is hindered by too much of a political hand.  He wondered why we would declare Fallujah a den for terrorists, go there for several days but then withdraw when we potentially had the major terrorist in Iraq pinned down there.  He also referred to the situation with Al Sadr and wondered why we would declare him a murderer and call for his capture or death but not press forward on our demands with all haste.  
    The issue of troop strenght came up.  My brother has always been clear, whenever he spoke with me about the issue, that we did not ever have enough troops in Iraq at any time.  His vision of winning a war centers around placing your foot (literally.  My brother is not a muderous bastard) on an enemy's neck and not letting up until that enemy is finished - in his opinion, the number of troops that we have in Iraq cannot put that foot down on the neck of enemies.  
    Finally his thoughts got around to terrorism and terrorists.  His feeling is that the number of terrorists that we will have to deal with proably have increased.  His rational was that marginally educated people are instinctual and react to stimulus that more educated people will.  While the educated people of Iraq probaly will not join terrorist groups, the reaction of the poor and poorly educated there is more gutural, with their decisions being driven more by emotion that logic.  His point was that all missteps have produced a group of peole that are interested in fighting against us, most of those people will calm down over time, but a small percentage will never cease fighting us.  Those who will never cease will ultimately join with others of the same temperament to become people who will try to violently damage our interests anywhere and at all times, until we deal with them.  He concluded by saying that he feels that terrorists have been created that we do not yet know of, and that the number of such people is much greater than it was before we went to Iraq.  His gut instinct was that we are actually less safe now, but that the illusion that one would get if one did not examine the situation deeper, is that we are safer - his logic on this point centered around his belief that there are increasing threats out there that we are currently unaware of because they are not yet on our radar screen.

Maybe you live in fear of getting bombed, but I don't.  I never worried during the Cold War that I would die from an U.S.S.R. launched I.C.B.M.  I grew up in the 70's & 80's, where the risk of getting nuked was much less than the threat in the 50's & 60's, although Vegetable Reagan tried otherwise to make it worse.  If you want to play into terrorists' hands and shake in fear of a possible attack, that's your choice.  The citizens of the U.S. should be concerned about where their next paycheck is going to come from, affordable health care and insurance, and the future of Social Security.  National Security is important, but not as important as the economy.  That's the real priority, something Shrub has not been able to deal with; that's why Kerry is the far better choice.