I'd like to sort through some of the positions related to the candidates and give them a relative weight as I see it:
Iraq Survey Group declares no WMD in Iraq
This is one of the most overblown issues in the news. Yes, it appears that President Bush and Colin Powell appear to have been mistaken on this issue. So was the CIA and MI5 and many critics of the millitary approach. The overall Bush position that we could not take the chance that the WMD was there is still valid.
Paul Bremer say US forces in Iraq insufficient
This one hurts. I can't imagine any possible refutation for the Bush appointed Czar of Iraq stating that he asked for more forces and was denied. Ouch!
Kerry said "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" but now says finishing the job is vital.
Though I disagree with Kerry's exclamation, it's internal logic holds. You can object to an action and then feel the vital need to finish it once it has begun.
Kerry's attachment to comming to a concensus with our "allies" prior to pre-emptive millitary action.
This is probably the scariest thing that I have heard so far from either candidate. As far as I am concerned, this is what disqualifies Kerry as a candidate to be our next president. We are approaching what is probably the most vital crossroads of our lifetimes. If we do not bear down heavily and unilaterally on Iran at this point in time, nuclear terrorism will move from the realm of theory to reality. Who really trusts the Europeans, who stood by for Bosnia in their own continent to work with us to keep the bomb out of the Mulllah's hands? It's a chance that I am simply not willing to take. On this issue, I go with the cowboy over the intellectual.