The following is a message received from the Author Terrence Robertson that he wrote in response to my article Kerry for President?

Dear Ali,  

Where to start? Well, working my way down ... you stated;  

[I have to acknowledge that Sen. Kerry was better prepared and was more eloquent than President Bush. But do eloquence and being articulate really equate to wisdom and statesmanship?]  

President Bush's preparations for the debate pretty well parallel his preparations for his actions as president. If he's unprepared for a debate that virtually had all the surprises already planned not to happen, then he should have been able to focus upon getting his message across. But he didn't prepare for it! And that lackadaisical attitude follows through in every initiative that he's ever put forward. He never planned for winning the peace in Iraq . He never planned on what the actual

costs would be for 'No child left behind,' he never planned for what the tax cuts would cost, and he never planned on what the actual costs of the war would be ... see my site http://RobEng.Bravehost.com/Chap23.htm .

His lack of preparation, his unwillingness to listen to advisors who know what the picture really is, and the ineptitude of his execution when combined with the most powerful military, and the strongest economy in the world are serving only to deplete our strengths.  

Uppermost in Bush's statesmanship failures was in how he allowed and abetted 9/11 to happen (see my http://RobEng.Bravehost.com/Chap20.htm ).  

That "perceived" wisdom that you refer to is nothing but an ideological bent that was formed at Bob Jones University (see http://RobEng.Bravehost.com/000001.htm#Compassion ). That wisdom is actually jingoistic, nihilistic, misogynistic, bigoted, and imperialistic. Further, it comes from a revolutionary movement that broaches no dissent, demonizes to the point of character assassination anyone who stands in their way, and views those having opinions different from their own to be enemies worthy of deportation, thus potentially opening the door to "final" solutions.  

In short, Bush lacks entirely both wisdom and statesmanship!  

[He [Kerry] said American ports are not secure. This is true. But in reality terrorists do not need to send their destructive terror through the ports. There are so many ways they could hit America and the rest of the civilized world that only their diabolic imagination sets the limit.]  

There is no argument that this is true. Did you know that one year after 9/11, Mexican banditos were disconnecting rail cars from Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) trains on the mainline of the Southern Pacific Railroad in southern New Mexico so that they could loot those rail cars of their contents? Further, they carried out running gun battles with INS, border patrol and federal marshalls so that they could do their looting? This is a prime example of how Bush has done nothing to secure our borders! Further, Bush has issued orders that limit the ability of both INS and the border patrol to do their jobs ... and backed up those orders by cutting funding to both the INS and the border patrol. What message does this send, I ask you? It would seem to me that the message is very clear; go ahead and terrorize, we won't stop you!  

[Sen. Kerry also berated his rival and said that the war in Iraq was a wrong war at a wrong time. Then in that debate he said something different. He said that he agreed with the war but he would have fought it differently. In other words it wasn’t the wrong war at a wrong time but a war that was fought in a wrong way.]  

Kerry provided Bush with the resources to fight Iraq based upon 'doctored' information that the Bush regime gave congress. Understand that Bush is not the brains behind this regime, he's only the figure-head. The brains are a consortium of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and a whole host of other people behind the scenes that you've probably never heard of. Did you know that only nine months into operations in Afghanistan, Bush was already freeing up military personnel for redeployment into Iraq? This is why the capture of Osama "bin hiding" fell to the responsibilities of Pakistani forces, because we no longer had the people there on the ground to do it. Had we finished up in Afghanistan, we'd be able to focus more power on those real threats such as those coming from the Saudi Arabian peninsula.  

And as the current news is making abundantly clear; (a.) Saddam was never "in-bed" with al Qaeda. First and foremost, the secular Saddam saw Islamic fundamentalists as a threat to his hold on power. Osama, in turn, regards Saddam as a socialist and as such, a secularist or infidel who is harmful to the cause of Islam. The only thing they had in common was a hatred of America. And while politics may make strange bed-fellows, for instance republican support of Ralph Nader, and one's enemy's enemy is one's friend, virulent Islam does not compromise. Therefore, there is no possibility for Saddam to have any association with Osama or his network. Further, the insinuation that Saddam was somehow responsible, wholly or partially, for the 9/11 attacks based upon reports that Mohammed Atta, one of the principle hijackers on 9/11, met in Prague with an agent of Iraqi intelligence, was discredited before the invasion began, and now the 9/11 Commission report underscores the earlier debunking even more.  

Technically, Saddam Hussein's Iraq did support international terrorism. In the Middle East, there was a "cold war" of sorts being waged between Israel and Iraq. Iraq waged this war through the proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah through funding to the organizations, and by cash awards to the families of suicide-bombers. However, Hamas and Hezbollah are not al Qaeda! There is a MAJOR distinction between Hamas and Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. Both Hamas and Hezbollah intentionally avoid killing Americans for fear that Americans will step up their aid to Israel, which would cease any hopes for a Palestine free of Israel (see my http://RobEng.Bravehost.com/Chap22.htm ).  

(b.) Iraq only became a terrorist hot-bed AFTER we took over, leaving the borders wide open for terrorists to enter to do their dirty work.  

(c.) Iraq has not had since before the first Gulf War any WMDs.  

(d.) we never had enough "boots on the ground" to do the job in Iraq.  

Iraq was the wrong war (Saddam had no relationship to al Qaeda), fought at the wrong time (we should have finished up Afghanistan first), and fought in the wrong way (you don't win wars WITHOUT HAVING BOOTS ON THE GROUND TO CONTROL THAT GROUND, that military doctrine hasn't changed in over 4,000 years).

Go to page 2