Centerfield

I would lay off the Syrians. They are no threat to the US

Iran is developing nuclear weapons. We need to hear what Kerry would do about that.

Short answer: No.

You're on exactly the right track, though. I don't think there's a substitute, even for a Democrat, for essentially adopting the neo-con vision as regards Iraq.

We can't undo the decision to go to war. Once it's made, building a stable government in Iraq is critical to U.S. interests. Iraq could become an excellent staging-ground for terrorism if it dissolves into civil war and anarchy.

Kerry needs to give something very like the speech you suggest. He won't, though, because it would upset some parts of his core constituency.

I'm really afraid for what we're going to see this year, if Iraq goes bad. I don't think we're prepared to handle that situation politically -- to offer a sound alternative to the Bush team.

No.

The Democratic base is opposed to the War in Iraq and to the War on Terrorism for that matter. Kerry seems to be running toward the base not away from it.

I probably use the word "bold" too much, but as you can tell I think that Kerry needs to lead on this issue. If he can't stand up the anti-war folks, he shouldn't be president.

That makes two of us who have written a speech like that for Kerry. I wrote one somewhere down below in one of the comments sections with a similar centerpiece: Kerry needs to say to Al quaeda et al that if you think I'll be good for you, I can't wait to show you how wrong you are.

I just don't think he has the seeds to do it, though. That's the problem.

MP: No more kool-aid for you! :}

The 'WE' in "we will redouble our efforts in Iraq" is the world community -- led by the U.S. (if we can do a bit more leading than dictating).

State sponsors are not the right focus (although states like Iran and North Korea cannot be ignored).

Here's a suggested read: http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/04/05/a_changing_qaeda_seen_on_5_continents/

I was impressed that Kerry used the term "enemies" when describing the killers in Fallujah.

Kerry said in a statement: "These horrific attacks remind us of the viciousness of the enemies of Iraq's future. United in sadness, we are also united in our resolve that these enemies will not prevail."

Kerry could easily fit the role of the tough guy that is determined to protect this country. He should actively embrace that role.

Rick: I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Syrians. They harbor many of the terrorists that threaten Israel, they may have helped hide Iraq's WMD, and they have a growing democratic movement that could help bring reform to the Middle East.

The dominoes will topple, given just the right nudge.

I think that's pretty close to Kerry's position -- now that we've started Iraq, we have to finish it, and returning the heat to Al Qaeda is another no-brainer.

The problem is how would he go about doing it? Easy to say, the tough part is laying out a plan to get there.

That part about Syria and Iran, though, veers too much in neo-Con territory. "Dominoes" echoes of Viet Nam.

Well, we can hope. Not hearing anything at all like this is what gives me the willies. You could argue that Kerry could blame Bush if Iraq didn't work out, so Bush has greater incentive, no matter what he's done wrong up to now.

The latter argument would never occur to me if Kerry was talking about how much harder he would work than Bush, and avoided wishful thinking about the international community being willing to send many more people to fight and die if we asked more nicely.

But I agree with those other commenters who either don't want to fight Iran and Syria, and who wouldn't telegraph their punches with threats if they did.

My point on Syria and Iran was not that Kerry should make "threats" -- it was that we are seeing domestic rebellion in those countries, and we support legitimate dissent. Kerry should express solidarity -- not commit to military intervention.