Waffle House, USA

Shortly after 9/11, this was sKerry's view... "... I remember feeling a rage, a huge anger, and I remember turning to somebody and saying, 'This is war.' I said, 'This is an act of war.''' Now, " ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance... It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.'' That's right, now sKerry equates Islamic jihadist "acts of war" as simply a nuisance, a matter strictly for law enforcement activity. On 9/11 the truth finally broke through to him and remained in his awareness for some time: it was an act of war. Now, "a nuisance"... NOT someone to trust in prosecuting the war against Islamic jihadists, or someone with a worldview (well, with his egocentric personality discorder, would you expect a "worldview"?) that can combat Islamic jihadists, let alone the array of forces aligned against Western Civilization as a whole. A "dangerous and naive" view, indeed (Thanks, GWB for the phrase—link to Friday's debate transcript). Note: the link above—"Now"— is to an October 10, 2004 article in the NYT and requires a relatively innocuous sign-up/registration to view. But do read the whole thing. It's intended, as you can tell from the first paragraph, as campaign lit for the sKerry campaign, disguised as "news" but nevertheless manages to reveal sKerry's "dangerous and naive" (as well as disingenuous and destructive) "worldview"...