It seems as though every presidential and mid-term election we have anymore is touted by the press as "extremely close," for months before the actual election day arrives. I wonder how such speculation goes unchallenged. It's as though the pundits actually have the election results in hand before the ballots are cast.

Though I tend to vote conservatively, I have been impressed with a couple of Democratic candidates this year (in other states) who have stood up for the values they have consistently believed in, one even who refuses to support abortion rights and who has taken a beating from other Democrats on that issue alone.

Without question however, the two issues most focused on by both parties (as I have seen it) are taxes and most especially the war in Iraq. The Democrats say that the war is going badly because of a lack of foresight and poor planning on the part of President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The Republicans say that while the war is a hard fought one, we have to "stay the course."

What is meant by, "Stay the Course?" The Democrats that I've heard, say that staying the course means staying with bad policies and tactics which will lead to more death, chaos, increased terrorism and ultimately a failure in Iraq.

What I've gleaned from the Republicans is that the war is hard, but they knew that going in, and we have to stick it out to meet with success, which depends largely on the willingness and ingenuity of the Iraqi people to help to build an infrastructure and security system which will stand on its own after U.S. military forces have left the country.

I still remember the troops entering into Baghdad, and Americans across the country being thrilled. I also remember President and First Lady Bush walking up to microphones after disembarking from the helicopter at the White House, and the President telling folks that they had to remember that this was not a quick in quick out operation and that it was going to be involved and it was going to take serious time.

It seems that the President had a pretty realistic grasp of what was going to be necessary in the very proactive action he was taking. I think few people were listening to the man, and I think they thought it would be a repeat of the surrender by the supposedly fearless "Republican Guard" of Saddam Hussein in 1991. Far from it.

As I listened to the Democratic response by a senator (whose name I didn't catch) I was dumbfounded by the fact that nobody calls them on it. The man stood there and said that while Saddam's conviction and sentencing was a good thing, it shouldn't distract the American people from the fact that the war has gone horribly wrong under the current leadership and that we need, "a new strategy."

Okay.......

What is it? What is the new strategy we need? Do the Democrats have something brilliant up their sleeves? Which one of them is a counter-terrorism expert and warfare strategist that will say something that will amaze the world and bring an end to this terrible conflict? If they have a strategy that they know will work better than what the generals on the ground in Iraq say will work, let them share it.

Will they not impart information that will save lives, bring our troops safely home without allowing Iraq to be destroyed and discourage the growth of terrorism unless they are elected? I consider that to be a monstrous concept and a nearly criminally selfish way to act. I haven't heard a single, specific, substantive idea from a Democrat yet, much less one who said they would share it now for the good of our nation, and the world at large.

I don't like the war. I hate the war, but the same people who drove a moving truck loaded with over half a ton of explosives into the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six people and injuring a thousand, came back and finished the job. They proved they have staying power. We have to have staying power too. We took the war to them because they brought it to us. Not once, but twice, and we can't allow a handful of thugs on the other side of the globe to dictate our lives to us.

For those folks who say that we went to Iraq under false pretenses because there were no weapons of mass destruction found, I would tell them to go back and check their facts. Weapons of mass destruction were found in the last three years in the form of chemical weaponry. Over five-hundred of them. Older? Yes. Volatile? Definitely, and proof enough that Saddam Hussein lied about having destroyed his WMDs. More have been found since 2003.

Also found were some other interesting things; terrorist training facilities (including passenger jet mock-ups), thirty Russian MiG jets buried in the sands of Iraq, to name a couple. Some of the jets were cold war era, but some of them were also MiG Foxbats with new technological advances for reconnaissance purposes that hadn't been seen by the U.S. military before. This means they were sold to Iraq, likely in the nineties in violation of the weapons ban.

These terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists. Some might call me a fundamentalist Christian. That means that I believe the Bible says what it means, and means what it says. Islamic fundamentalists believe the Koran means what it says, and says what it means. If you read the Koran, and you don't have to read very long, you will discover that true Islam does not have any love for those who do not share their beliefs.

"The Day of Resurrection will not arrive until the Moslems make war against the Jews and kill them, and until a Jew hiding behind a rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: 'Oh Moslem, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'" (Sahih Bukhari 004.52.176)

The Koran isn't any kinder in its approach to Christianity; "Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:29)

But don't be alarmed, they are very inclusive: "Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

Liberal Western scholars keep doing their utmost to convince others that Islam is close to Christianity and that it promotes love and peace. That is incompatible with the vitriolic and hate-filled writings that are easy to find, contained in the Koran. These teachings are vengeful and they are perverted. Islam is not compatible with Christianity at all. I have a solid Christian friend from high school whose pastor told him that Islam worships the same god we do. Not at all a true statement. He was also told by his pastor that Christianity has much more in common with Islam than it does not. What in the world does that mean?

I realize there are peaceful Muslims living in the U.S., reading a Westernized, watered-down version of the Koran, who are good citizens and patriots. Unfortunately, there are Muslims living here too, who are blatantly anti-American and preach openly in Arabic and in English about taking this country down. I have seen and heard it for myself. They view our precious rights to free speech and freedom to worship as "weaknesses" and "loopholes" to use against us. I have heard them say it.

These guys are serious, and I don't think we need to be playing games and fooling around with hypothetical strategies which no one cares to make known, and I don't intend to vote for anyone who intends to do so.