I really had to put myself in check this week listening to the right wings shows. I hear them all. Mike Gallager, Rusty Humphies, Rush Limbaugh, The Radio Factor and Laura Ingram and in almost every case they were trying to spin the joking comments made by the president about the missing WOMD although Mike Gallager admitted his wife did not agree with him. As hot a topic as it is and has been under no circumstances as a President should you "joke about it" even at an event where that kind of thing is common place to poke fun at yourself. I think I know why he may have done it but it was still a poor misjudgment on his part to make the jokes especially for the families who have lost sons and daughters over there. At the very least it cheapens our anti-terror effort and the world view of it by other countries.

Now gang I want you to notice something about the above statements. Did you see any "yes...buts"? Yes but the other side does that and worse. Yes but this, yes but that. Now David...et all before you guys all collectively jump here and say "My god Pat you have finally seen the light" let me explain my support has not swayed away from Bush so here goes:
When all of this began and we wanted to invade Iraq the main argument given early was 17 or whatever UN resolutions that were broken and Sadaam was not going to change his ways. Now after the president’s initial statements after the 911 attacks about how they were going to mount a war on terror I as most Americans (I'm hoping) are thinking well hell we did not get rid of Sadaam in 1991 lets do it now but of course 17 broken resolutions was not enough. Would 25 be enough or say 50 or 100? What would it take for the world community (UN) to support us in an invasion? The answer to be honest is never. So if there is going to be a war on terror are we going to take the world litnest test or are we going to look at what is best for us in the long run and take it on NOW? I supported the NOW argument the day after 911 so the supposed WOMD were gravy to me.

I heard it asked on one of the shows who do you think the terrorists most want in the White House and if you can figure that out vote for the other guy. I thought it funny but true. Earlier I had made a post about how Dick Morris had commented about the election coming down to 2 issues. The economy and the war. Bush would win on the war and Kerry on the economy I had to revisit that and think a bit but I came to this conclusion.

"If we are soft on terrorism the economy will go to shit."

 If you don’t believe me look at wall street anytime the "market" has "terrorist jitters". It is a miracle don’t you think that we have not have had a second terrorist attack?
Now before you jump in and say oh that great Bush admin has saved us let me explain. Would you not agree it would come down to 2 things why this has not happened?

1. Our Counter-Terrorism teams have been effective in preventing this.
2. Terrorist realize that if they make another attack on U.S soil that we will come back and with a vengeance under the Bush administration

Now fast forward to Kerry taking office. The perception that comes with #2 is out the window so immediately after the election they (the terrorist) test the waters just see what his reaction would be to an attack.

Those of you who have been here in the US a while notice that the market cycles. That is the  economy has high and low cycles that have nothing to do with what the Washington politicians do so the things that Kerry is perceived to do with jobs and such would influence the economy in a good way (I actually support his idea of keeping jobs here. What a concept huh?) but not as great as to counter what would happen if there was another attack or even a perceived attack. I honestly think him coming in could ultimately devastate the economy because of this.

Just my 2 cents.

--Pat