11. And, most recently, Syria at last decreasing its armed forces in Lebanon and pledging, once again, to close down terrorist operations in their country.

My ClashPoint is this:  in the woulda-shoulda-coulda realm ? sure, Bush could have pounced more forcefully on Kerry?s misinformation regarding:

1. the supposed [but non-existent] loss of support among military officials;

2. Saddam?s clear and dangerous support of Al Qaeda and several other terror groups;

3. his vote against the 87 Billion for body armor and other critical funding programs;

4. his endless flip-flops  on liberating Iraq and the policy of preemption;

5. his flat out lie that he never called Bush a liar;

6. his nonsense that Saddam?s capture has made us less secure;

7. his insisting that just because the French and Germans aren?t with us, we don?t have a coalition, despite more than 30 nations in our multinational force and providing training and security aid to assure a free Iraq.

But for whatever reason the President let the metrosexual candidate slide a bit.   Sure, Kerry looked presidential and sounded presidential.  But looks and sounds don?t mean squat to terrorists.  Decisive action does.  Dealing out hell and death to the deserving does. 

It?s here that Bush blows Kerry away.  Bush backs up his words: he?ll kill those who attempt to harm us and will not look to a feckless U.N. for a thumbs-up before he rains fire down on those who would kill us.  With Kerry, all we have are promises coming from a premise that contradicts his current claims at their very core. 

Sure, Kerry might have passed the TV dumb chick test.  In the real, wartime world, where nations are at stake, that means jack squat.  With dictators jailed, terrorist networks disbanded and those who remain scattered like lice around Fallujah, we know what Bush will do.  It is highly suspect what Kerry will do. 

JFK, too?s promises, promises?  No, thanks.  Dubya?s results, results?  More of the same, please.