Kerry's new line of attack on Bush has to do with the $200 billion for the Iraq war, saying that that was money that could have been used on other priorities.

Pandagon.net, a liberal blog, has expressed dismay at this line of attack because wars cost money and how would Kerry have paid for a war anyway. Well, we did not have to go to war against Iraq.

The issue is that President Bush made his choices.
--He chose to dole out $1.3 trillion in tax cuts,
--He planned for an unnecessary war that he knew would cost 100s of billions
--He arm twisted for a sham Medicare bill that increases the size of government and does little for seniors.

These were all bad choices.

Kerry on the other hand would have done what Jesus suggested in the Luke reading on Sunday:

Or what king marching into battle would not first sit downand decide whether with ten thousand troopshe can successfully oppose another kingadvancing upon him with twenty thousand troops? But if not, while he is still far away,he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms. Lk 14:25-33

A wise leader counts the costs.

Here's what I think Kerry would have done:

-Kerry would have gone to war against the Taliban who harbored Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked us not Iraq. The 9-11 terrorsist had demonstrable ties with Saudi Arabia and Iran and none with Iraq.
-Kerry would have made capturing Osama Bin Laden soon after the attack, a priority.
-Kerry would have adopted a tough line against terrorism and terror sponsoring states such as Pakistant, Iran and Syria
-Kerry would have contained Iraq through the fly overs because Iraq was so low down the threat immediacy chain. Iran, Syria, North Korea and Pakistan were far more immediate threats.
-Kerry understood that Saddam Hussein was a problem that needed to be dealt with. But unlike Bush, Kerry would not have lied by claiming that Saddam was an immediate threat to the US
-Kerry would have committed to rebuilding Afghanistan and establishing our credibilty in the region, thus giving us real allies in the war against Al Qaeda.
-Kerry would lead the world in a unified war against terror, unlike Bush who does not know how to lead. He thinks he is leading, but as Senator Biden asked, "If you are leading, then where are the followers?"
-Kerry would commit to addressing the Palestinian problem, which provides oxygen for dissatisfied Islamic extremists and frustrated hopeless youths.

In moving in a smart strategic manner, Kerry's leadership would move the momentum of world action towards making the world inhospital for terrorist. To overcome terrorism, one must remove conditions for recruitment, capture or kill existing terrorist, and stop state sponsorship of terrorism (Syria, Pakistan, Iran, N. Korea [Iraq is not and has not been on this list] also addressing failed states like Somalia, etc). This requires unprecedent cooperation and leadership and not a bungling misadventure.

All this could be achieved with out deploying the 130,000 + soldiers, dishing out billions to halliburton, and being stuck in a quagmire. If Kerry felt that action in Iraq at some point was necessary then he would plan and take the time to develop the right conditions. he would bring in allies and the UN; he would let the inspectors do their job which would have taken at least a year; he would listen to his military chiefs and if necessary expandend the size of the military in preparation; he would get realistic commitments from allies, especially muslim allies who would put muslim troops on the ground. When all is said and done, Kerry would not need to spend any where near what Bush has, which is all money spent to little avail.

Further, because a stronger America starts at home:

- Kerry would not have doled out a trillion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy
-He would close loop holes that reward outsourcers with tax rewards
-Kerry has a real health care plan that will reduce the cost to employers by a $1000/ employee spuring economic growth
-Kerry will increase the minimum wage to $7+/hr and give real tax relief to the middle class. Minimum wagers and middle class folks will spend and create growth in the economy is given more money. The wealthy may buy an extra yacht and then park the rest of the millions in the stock market.
-Kerry will invest in homeland security, borders, ports, technology, etc creating economic activity

Kerry is smart enough to know that fighting tough is only half the battle, fighting smart is what counts. Kerry understands that everything is interrelated, and that fighting the war against Al Qaeda can also work positively for the economy.

If I were a betting man, I would bet that the Pope would love to see John Kerry in the White House. But I'm not a betting man and the Pope would never play his hand. Although, with his reported statement agains military action as a response to terror, I don't see how that is not a very strong statement against this administration's misguided policies.