I read Brian's original post - which said, in a nutshell, that voting for Bush in 2004 was the only way to preserve democracy - but just didn't feel it was necessary to respond. With his follow-up, though, I'm roused.
All I will do is point out that there is broad agreement - across party and independent lines - that we do need to succeed in Iraq. Personally I will vote for any Democrat over Bush who does not advocate withdrawal from Iraq.
Brian simply equates Bush with strength and security and wisdom. This is false. I don't see a President's Administration as credible on security if they abuse the military by denying them benefits. Or wage war on false pretenses (it was never about WMD). Or deliberately expose an undercover CIA agent solely for political payback. Or abandon the multilateral agreements of the community of nations that we need to make sure we are all in this together.
The administration we have now puts politics first, and then assumes what is good for the Party is good for America (the party that really matters, anyway). The administration we have now thinks that the only valid route to solving the foreign policy problems in a unilaeral pax Americana approach. The administration we have now sees civil liberties as an inconvenience. The administration we have now thinks that rhetoric about govt spending and taxcut ideology are sufficient replacements for fiscal responsibility to future generations.
All these things mean that the Administration we have now must be removed if we are to survive as a nation, with our ideals and liberties, intact - and if we are to remain capable of helping the world help itself.