John Kerry: He's really annoying

First in the spirit of full disclosure: I can't stand John Kerry.

Well Romney is taking on Kerry and the Democratic naysayers according to a Boston Globe article titled "Romney, Kerry spar over fight on terror: Governor raps senator for criticizing Iraq war." It's good to see Romney isn't above using Rap.

Anyway, there were some interesting information tidbits in this article.

Asked about Kerry's comments during an appearance on the MSNBC cable network, Romney blasted Kerry. The governor said the senator failed to recognize that the United States is locked in a long-term war against terrorists and that Iraq is a central front.

``I think it shows a complete lack of understanding of the kind of enemy that we're facing," said Romney, a Republican. ``This is not a small group of wackos in the hills that all we have to do is go find one person and it suddenly goes away."

Kerry's response?

In turn, Kerry's communications director, David Wade, questioned the governor's knowledge of issues related to Iraq and terrorism.

``Mitt Romney's command of national security is about as real as the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Wade said.

Why do I have a feeling that Wade took some time to think of that? And C'mon Kerry, you want to loose again? If not you have to bring some ideas to the table, not revert to high school level of personal attacks on the person who takes you to task.

But the saddest part of the article is this:

Their comments were made as members of both parties scrambled for a political edge following Tuesday's arrests in what authorities called a well-planned, sophisticated terrorist scheme to destroy jetliners in midflight from London to the United States.

Republicans cast the arrests as evidence that President Bush's aggressive antiterrorism policies are working. Democrats pointed to gaps in US transportation and border security and missteps in Iraq to argue that the nation is more vulnerable than ever.

The first part is honestly terrible. We really don't need politicking. Although I guess when you put human nature and a 2 party political system in a bag with GWOT and shake this is what you get. But it is unfortunate.

As for the second paragraph, what does the Globe mean when they say GOP'ers are trying to "cast" this? This is spin? Give me a break. To me it's simple. If you stop a major terrorist plot, you're doing your job. The fact that Dems are arguing that this is a result of a failed Iraq policy means that they beleive we would have no more terrorism if we didn't go into Iraq. In other words terrorist can be appeased. Is the Democratic party the party of Appeasement, the party of Chamberlain?