Not so fast, Andrew Sullivan! The War on Terror is far from over.

Andrew Sullivan, the gay blogger, wants the War on Terror to be over NOW so we can discuss more important issues like gay marriage or the US economy. I too would like to see the US and it's allies victorious on the WOT so we can focus on more fun things.

But the reality is, the WOT is FAR FROM OVER.

Yes, Bush is so far successful in running the campaign against the terrorists and terror-sponsoring states, but we're not even halfway done yet in this fight. Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only countries we have to deal with here. Nandiyan rin ang north korea, iran, syria, libya, saudi arabia, at yung mga Taliban na nagtatago sa loob ng Pakistan.

The US needs to pressure these terror-sponsoring states to introduce democratic reforms in their country. We need to coordinate with the international community to help curb WMD proliferation.

Glenn Reynolds wrote something that is very true:

The war effort is, in fact, going well -- but to some degree that's actually hurting Bush by taking it off the front burner. And if Osama turns up captured or killed, that will actually exacerbate the problem by making it easier for people to pretend that we don't need to worry about the war any more. And a lot of people want to do that either for self-interested reasons -- to get their own special interests on the agenda, or to distract people from their own war-related failures -- to which you can add the general war-weariness that even a lot of war supporters are feeling now. War is stressful, and the temptation to pretend it's over and put it out of your mind is strong.

I believe he's referring to the likes of Andrew Sullivan. Ever since Bush proposed amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, galit na si andrew sa kanya.

Now, the most important issues for Andrew in this election are:

1) Gay Marriage
2) Economy
3) War on Terror

Baliktad naman sa akin:

1) War on Terror
2) Economy
3) Gay Marriage

I know he briefly mentioned in one of his sentences that the war isn't over yet, but if you read the whole text of his article, parang gusto niyang sabihin na delikado si bush dahil patapos na ang gera and he is a victim of his own success.

Ayaw nyong maniwala, then why did he compare Bush to Churchill -- who lost the postwar election to a lesser candidate. Sabi niya na baka matalo rin raw si bush sa "postwar" election sa 2004. "Postwar" election? Aba, tapos na pala ang gera, kung maniniwala ka kay Andrew.

Kaya wag tayong magpapaloko sa mga pikon na tao. Pikon dahil hindi nila nakuha ang gusto nila sa gay marriage issue.

Sa nakikita ko, napilitan lang si Bush ng mga judicial activists sa massachusetts at ng SF mayor... who think he's above the law. I personally am not against gay marriage, but I'm not pushing for it either. Kung gusto nilang baguhin ang batas, dapat idaan sa tamang processo. Huwag lumabag sa batas.

May pagka sira rin itong si andrew. Si john edwards raw ang gusto niyang maging nominiee ng dem party. Naku naman, eh mukhang bata itong si edwards at halatang CLULESS pagdating sa foreign policy at national security. Pati kay John Kerry, talo siya sa issue na ito. Walang experience.

It's obvious that Sullivan chose edwards because of his Style, NOT Substance. NAPAKABABAW NAMAN NIYA! What makes him think edwards is better than bush on the economy? Puro class warfare at protectionism lang ang alam nito. john would have been a good clinton-type candidate in the 90's (or pre 9/11), but in a post-9/11 world, We don't need an inexperienced, smiley-face, feel-good president to lead us in times of war.