If your economy is in the toilet, you have no first responders left because of budget cuts and Iraq, your hospitals are unfunded and your people are already sick, a terrorist attack will be all that more devastating because you will be unable to respond to it. Knowing that will only embolden terrorists in their attempts.

Get ready for the soap box.

Last time I checked our economy was not in the toilet. We are experiencing record growth because of Bush's tax cuts. Please look at:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/ces_cps_trends.pdf

These are the bureau of labor statistics for both the payroll and household labor studies which are used to determine the amount of jobs in our economy. After reading it please tell me how on earth the President has lost more jobs than he created. Also take note that the payroll survey does not poll sole propriotorships nor small businesses. Oh, hmmm I seem to remember something that happened in September of 2001 that shook this country and our economy that was already hicupping from President Clinton's policys. But I guess that did not have that much of an effect on the economy. It is simply amazing that we are in as good of shape as we are so quickly.

Where have first reponders been cut? We have the highest funded hospital system in the world. No health system rivals ours in the world. Everyone who walks into a hospital gets treated regardless of their ability to pay. I guess somehow it is now wrong to expect people to pay for services that they receive. John Edwards greatly increased pregnancy expenses in NC because of a Junk Science foundation on the causes of Cerebral Palsy. He got filthy rich and the peolpe of NC are paying the price.

Just ask yourself one question, who would these Islamic Terrorists prefer to be elected President?

Just ask yourself one question, who would these Islamic Terrorists prefer to be elected President?

I would think, that on the list of terrorist concerns, whoever is President at a given time is pretty far down there.

"If 9/11 shook you, if you remain shook and if you understand that a terrorist attack with also affect the economy, hello, then you're probably voting for Bush."

Heaven knows why if you look at the actual facts of our Homeland Security. In three years the DoJ has detained about 5000 people on suspicion of terrorism, and, to date, has not convicted one of them in a full trial. NOT ONE. Nor have any been shown to be a "sleeper cell" of anything. Outside of a couple of obvious, caught in the act, pleas like Richard Raftan, George and the boys are batting 0 for 5000.

Out of 600+ detained indefinitely at Camp Delta we have just barely gotten to a preliminary hearing of those famous "military tribunals" that were going to expedite our "war on terror" (and we are apparently going to try only about 9 of them!)

Not only that, Yaser Esam Hamdi, the "enemy combatant" who happened to be a US citizen, and supposedly "too dangerous to bring to trial" is being let go home to Saudi Arabia! And have you heard much about Zaccarias Moussoui lately?

Remember the anthrax terrorist? He or she still doesn't have a name, a face, or a trial date.

Our own special forces mock terrorist teams have proved conclusively that, even when the guards know they are coming, our domestic nuclear facilities fail to stop them getting bomb material 50% of the time! On one surprise January inspection, in fact, ALL the guards in the facility were watching the Super Bowl.

None of the chemical plants that could kill thousands of people in large cities--far more even than planes running into large buildings--are adequately protected. Often reporters can just walk into them.

A pitiful fraction of the overseas containerage is inspected for anything. If somebody does have a spare nuke, that would be a perfect way to account for Charleston, SC.

Our borders are a sieve. Period.

And if you think our airplane security is adequate, consider the fact that we nearly shot down the Governor of Kentucky by mistake because the FAA wasn't on the same page as NORAD.

We still have no way of checking who buys large quantities of the fertilizer Ammonium Nitrate (with diesel fuel the terrorist bomb component of choice), the chemical Sodium Cyanide (the basis for the nerve gas Sarin), commercially packaged Castor Plant Beans (the basis for the poison Ricin), or even low-level nuclear waste (for "dirty bombs").

We ship all this dangerous stuff, and much more, through cities on easily accessible railroad cars! And we are soon planning to do the same with all the high level nuclear waste we are sending to Nevada!

I'll stop here, though the list could go on. If the heads of the people who think GWB is protecting us adequately from terrorism were penetrable by fact, going on might be of some use.

They're not.

Just ask yourself one question, who would these Islamic Terrorists prefer to be elected President?

I agree with Shawn.

But insofar as you are looking for a 'straight answer' to your queston, maybe you should look at the state of the world. In the last three years: the international reputation of the United States has plummeted, the popularity of Osama bin Laden has skyrocketed, al Qaeda recruitment has gone up, radical groups have finally been given their own cities in Iraq, heroin production in Afghanistan is above pre-Taliban levels, the Russian/Chechan conflict has escalated, Pakistan(/the Muslim people) gained ground in the debate over Kashmir, the United States is particularly divided, and Islamist terrorist attacks around the world are no less frequent or severe.

Given all that... it's hard to say that these 'Islamic Terrorists' wouldn't be happy with George W. Bush still running the show. At the same time, I'm sure they'd also adapt reasonably well to any different measures John Kerry might institute.

So as Shawn said--they probably just don't care all that much, and will probably be happy with either one.

Joseph, The Lackawanna Six Islamic Terrorist group was caught, plead guilty and have been sentenced. So much for your 0 for 5000.

oh of course 6 for 5000 is a truly impressive statistic.

Joseph you make some very valid points. I have my own criticisms of the Bush administratrion and its handling of Homeland defense; you outlined them well.

But what has John Kerry proposed to do about this? Nothing, Nada, Zip. By his 20 year history in the Senate he is by no means a Hawk. He does not even take his security briefings. The same ones President Bush heres every day. That is no surprise since he failed to show up to Public Hearings of the Intelligence Committee when he was a member.

Are we supposed to all of sudden take his word for it that he will do a better job just because he says he will, when his record tells a different story.

National Security is a process that we have to refine constantly. We must way our freedom and level of security carefully. If we clamped down on inspecting containers right now International commerce would grind to a stand still and our economy would crash. But we need to look at it further because it is a major security risk for not only Charleston, but Newark, and Norfolk, and Long Beach.

As for the 2 or 3 detainees held that are American citizens, they should be tried in American Courts. See how us right-wing fanatics just drink the Kool Aid and follow our man. Sarcasm intended.

As for the rest of the detainees they are not prisoners of war as defined by the Geneva Convention. So what do we do with them? I say it takes as long as it takes. We are at war with people that want to kill us. I would rather fight them in Iraq and around the world than here in America. They will some day get there hearings. It took 4 years to bring OJ Simpson to trial, I will use that as the benchmark before I start complaining about giving them their day in court.

I guess you have not read about the Sarin gas we have found. 4 Liters in a warhead may not be the "stockpiles" of the media accepted standard for found WMDS. I guess having the power to potentialy kill 10,000 is not that big of deal.

For reference http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005096.

Or that we found chemical weapon residue in the Euphrates...

Or the Mobile Biological weapons labs...

Or long range missle engines...

Or unmanned drones...

Or that he killed hundreds of Kurds in 1994 with Chemical weappons...

Or that every Intelligence Agency from every major country said that Saddam had WMDS...

All of this is in violation of UN resolutions. 17 in fact.

But lets not back up our threat of force with actual force because it might hurt our reputation with the world. When did the Euro-weenies of France and Germany become the World?

Here is a partial list of the countries who are helping in the war on terror.

Australia,Hungary,Italy,Japan,Jordan,Kazakhstan,Kenya,Kuwait,Kyrgyzstan,Latvia,Lithuania,FYR of Macedonia,Netherlands,New Zealand, Norway,Pakistan,Philippines.

How is our reputaion with them?

We must have a horrble reputation when so many want to flee their own country to come to America to gain a better life. America is the country of wealth and opputunity. "Man those Americans are evil, but can I come over and get a job and live like them."

We are the best country in the world and we should not be ashamed of it.

"But what has John Kerry proposed to do about this? Nothing, Nada, Zip."

You want to see what he's proposed?

Go read his website and inform yourself:
http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

You want to compare it to what George W. Bush has now "proposed" after four years on the job? You can do the homework here:
http://www.georgebush.com/Agenda/Chapter.aspx?ID=4

Don't want to bother? Well the man just MIGHT be the President come January. So he has to call you for a personal appointment to tell you what he wants to do? Or persuade some Inside the Beltway Pundit that he can somehow talk tougher than George no matter what George has actually accomplished or Kerry has proposed to do? And if he doesn't tell you personally, or persuade that pundit, he's proposed nothing, nada, zip?

Aren't we supposed to be responsible citizens when we vote and inform ourselves? I always thought so.

Joseph I appreciate your references. I didn't know John Kerry had a website.

But Seriously, I have read Kerry's plan for America, and I can not find anything on National Security that the President does not already have a plan for. Please educate me.

Michael, this has gotten fairly far down in Karol's stack, and I think we are abusing her bandwidth to take it further here. I would enjoy continuing over on my own blog, on the latest post, if you are so inclined.

In addition, my maiden post there, back early this September, was an essay in support of Kerry stating the bipartisan things I thought he could accomplish in 4 years on this issue if elected.

It could form the starting point of further discussion, if you like.