I agree with you on certain items.

don't discount the death of casulties but I do dispute the source. Again they mention deaths but how? Suicide Bombers? Air Strikes, old age?and Reg I did read the breakdown. Would you trust the Al-Jazeera network with the facts?

The breakdown I posted seems conservative and reasonable for that time period. The numbers per region are small and as stated in the previous article I posted are likely mainly due to airstrikes and helicopter gunship activity...which despite all the talk about "precision targeting" and such are quite randomly destructive. Now sorting out who died of what is probably a fairly tough task but the bottom line in anything you read about it is in excess of 80,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of this conflict. Since capture of Saddam the death toll has greatly increased, for us and the Iraqis. I don't think that has anything to do with Saddam but more that in the time since his capture the insurgents have time to plan, organize, and focus their efforts. As we set goals and deadlines so do they. The problem is that the insurgents are forward thinking and on the attack but due to poor planning, policy, and management of this conflict our troops have been reduced to sitting ducks. So you ask... 

 
What different do you think Kerry would do?

Well, I think for one he would change this strategy to assist our troops nearly the second his ass hits that big seat in the oval office. There is and has been complete disarray on the ground in Iraq due to the Bush administrations lack of planning and big deaf ears. They have spent all of 2004 doing nothing there to improve the situation but instead trying to avoid having it become public knowledge just how badly they screwed up. Now every time somebody points that out whether it's a reporter, or Republican, or general, or CIA person, or Weapons Inspector, or foreign news agency, or Democrat, or John Kerry, the response from the Bush Administraion is always the same...deny and say that they are playing politics. It's ridiculous that people continue to tolerate it. With Kerry in office that will certainly change.

Something to consider. A question posed by Bill Oreilly this weekend was what are you going to do if your guy loses?

Well, this is an ugly question but more so I think if Bush wins. About half of this country thinks the Bush administration is destroying our country and all that it stand for. The desire to remove them from office has reached hysteria in some cases. I think a continuation of his presidency will bring things to an ugly head in this country. Just look at the folks on this board as an example. I think the crowd here is a good and decent bunch, reasonable and thoughtful with an eye toward making a better world, even if we don't agree on what that is...but when it comes to talking about Bush we come apart at the seams and can quickly be reduced to name calling. Well, truth is we are a pretty mild bunch compared to the hardliners on each side that are out there. People see this as a battle for this country and I think many believe that you must do whatever it takes to achieve victory. Personally, I see that as a dangerous situation for this country but also it may be where we need to go to get the sort of change that people really want. It does seem to be a running theme with mankind that tragedy is what it takes to bring about change.     

Honestly I would have to think what I would do if Bush loses but if Kerry wins and House and Senate are Republican then Kerry wont get sweeping change.

No, I don't think you can say that Kerry can bring about sweeping change in a 4 year term. All you could possibly expect from Kerry is that he'll right the ship and set us on the road to recovery. I certainly don't expect sweeping change, there is too much damage to repair. His task will be working to repair that damage and that will consume his presidency. I think you are correct that if the House and Senate remain Republican and they fight him...then yeah, it's going to be tough for him. Plus, as there are those on the far left that will work to take down Bush, there will be those on the far right that work as hard as they can to undermine Kerry. I think the fact that big oil and the military industrail complex are in the hands of hard right Republicans is also a huge issue for Kerry. Not one that gets talked about but there is a lot of money and power in that concentration and all of it is aligned against him.

I was thinking the press was going to town with this missing weapons charge bogus as it was and replaced by a Christmas present to Bush of the Osama video.

I'm not sure either story works to benefit either side, they will try and use them and spin them to their advantage but the fact is neither story has much to do with this election. They are kind of window dressing to draw you into the store but the choice  is clear here to anyone who has studied the two sides. I can see only one clear reason to vote for Bush and that's if you are against abortion. In all other cases, from healthcare, to jobs, to protecting this country, to education, to the environment...Bush has a terrible track record and has dangerous and destructive policy on the table for his next four years. I don't think I've ever seen an election where there was a clearer choice.

In either case I hope the election is a decisive one and if one man wins but is close we dont have bickering and sending it to partison judges. We don't need that

Well, I completely agree with you here too. I think if this election is won in the courts again America is in big, big trouble. Each side is set up to fight that battle though and I think that's likely going to be the case. The one thing Bush has really set in stone in his presidency is that he has from the beginning put this country and all it stands for in the hands of some vile and destructive lawyers. From winning his presidency in the Supreme Court to using lawyers to find ways to work around and eliminate our participation in the Geneva Convention, to using the Patriot Act to shut down any court case they desire under the guise of "homeland security", to dismissing the publics right to know what Cheney discussed with the energy lobby by forcing it to go to court...it's been quite ugly. What's plainly obvious is we can't trust Bushco and they don't trust us.