Debate "highlight"... expounding...

I fully expect the Kerry campaign will ignore this point because it's inconvenient for them as well – plus, like, who the fuck reads my blog for political advice – but Bush's change offers further proof that it's a lot easier for America to destroy than to rectify. It's surely easier to attack nations with flimsy armies than address mutable stateless "terrorism" (based on ideology that crosses border and exacerbated by global social and political trends) with the weapons we have, and it's definitely quicker and somehow more politically expedient to wreck a country than to urge it towards democracy.

If Kerry (or anyone else) tells you he's going to hunt down and kill all the terrorists, he's lying. I think when he addresses terrorism from a law enforcement perspective, he more clearly addresses the issues than Bush ever does. And while it's kind of sweet to hear a conservative talk about "freedom on the march" around the globe, it would really be nice if his policy matched his rhetoric. Under Bush, unfortunately, the focus is on the "marching" rather than the "freedom."

It's going to take major foreign policy reform to end terrorist attacks against our country. There was probably one opportunity to wake Americans up to the idea of personal sacrifice where this was involved: in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the president could have said that in order to realistically address terrorism - in more ways than militarily -- it was going to mean more government spending at home and abroad. Americans needed to tighten their belts and face up to the possibility of higher taxes. Instead, the president wasted political capital on a war that didn't need to be fought (certainly not right away), with goals that were blurry and for reasons that proved groundless.

If America were really showing commitment to two-state peace in Israel and Palestine, if this government were wholeheartedly working to stop the African AIDS and global overpopulation crises, and if we led by example in cleaning up the ecology in our own backyard and invested in new energy technologies to break worldwide dependence on fossil fuels, it wouldn't eviscerate bin Laden or other terrorist leaders. But under such conditions, who would volunteer as a suicide attacker? Do people around the world really hate McDonald's and Coca-Cola, or are they hated as symbols of a pervasive materialistism seeking access to their markets but not allowing them to improve their lives?

This isn't a tactical question of letting terrorists force us into new positions. Whatever the initial causes of hatred against this country, terrorism aimed at the U.S. is a symptom of American disdain for wise, practical global policies. Those who oppose American "regime change" or any other motives based on the premise that "the terrorists will win" are guilty of a heinous shortsightedness regarding our influence -- intended and otherwise -- on the world around us.