Maybe I’m being overly optimistic, but I see this as a potentially positive development.

If narcissistic folks like Kerry and Edwards start worrying that terrorist attacks might cause them to lose elections, maybe they’ll finally get serious about the GWOT.

Just guessing that folks like Kerry are simply too deranged to ever figure it out.

I think Ketchup Boy is just trying to console himself that if only he'd run for President before 9/11, he'd have won.

He must have meant his failure to address the lasting consequences of 9/11, i.e. the war on terror, is what cost him the election. Specifically, his having been for it before he was against it.

He was obviously referring to the public reaction to 9/11 and the Bush administration's use of that reaction.

Perhaps someone would be willing to look this up: how many national terror alerts have we had since the election, and how many did we have in the same number of months before the election? Wasn't there an article where the DHS even admitted that they called alerts to play politics?

As far as perception vs. reality, most of those who reelected Bush did so thinking he's the "homeland security president".

Yet, what kind of "HSP" leaves the borders wide open?

And, if Kerry were president, and he were as weak on homeland security as Bush is, wouldn't the GOP call him on it, making the Dems look even worse than they do now?

And, wouldn't that force Kerry to actually improve homeland security?

So, because America reelected someone who they thought was the "HSP", they got worse homeland security than they would have under Kerry.

Oh boo hooo hooo Now that Teresa has dropped the Kerry name this boy is looking even longer in the face! Boy toy may have to fend for himself in the end.

TLB: Sharp point but dull logic.

You have to do better than to just say "fewer alerts now must mean political skullduggery." You have to also assess whether or not there have actually been fewer threats, not just what was being reported. Neither you nor I have that information, but my default assumption is not conspiratorial.

Anyway, Kerry just keep working on cementing his place in history as a road apple...

Well, TLB, lets just see:

He was obviously referring to the public reaction to 9/11 and the Bush administration's use of that reaction. What makes this so obvious? And why did he cut the discussion short when pressed for clarification? Seems he would want to make that point abundantly clear.

Perhaps someone would be willing to look this up: how many national terror alerts have we had since the election, and how many did we have in the same number of months before the election? Of course the alerts are down, because the Global War on Terror is working. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we have killed potential US attackers by the 10’s of thousands, before they had a chance to kill us here.

Wasn't there an article where the DHS even admitted that they called alerts to play politics? Don’t know. I do recall some speculation of such over at the Daily Kos.

As far as perception vs. reality, most of those who reelected Bush did so thinking he's the "homeland security president". On this one, I must bow in deference to your superior mind reading abilities.

Yet, what kind of "HSP" leaves the borders wide open? Maybe the kind of HSP proposed by Democrats, who want to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, healthcare, and free college education?

And, if Kerry were president, and he were as weak on homeland security as Bush is, wouldn't the GOP call him on it, making the Dems look even worse than they do now? Yes, to the first part. Absolutely. But I don’t think even the evil genius Karl Rove could make the Dems look worse than they do now. But I am sure he would enjoy trying.

And, wouldn't that force Kerry to actually improve homeland security? Based on his 20+ year record of zero accomplishments in the Senate, I really doubt it. And as a side note, its apparently a little known fact that in our country, the congress actually has the real power to control things like this.

So, because America reelected someone who they thought was the "HSP", they got worse homeland security than they would have under Kerry. Apparently, your prognosticating skills are much, much weaker than your mind reading abilities. Because that assertion is just plain crap.

Your post just made me laugh outloud Mr Burgess...LOL 'Road Apple' is the perfect description. Did you see Kerry today at the signing for the Rosa Parks Memorial...all the likely suspects were there are minor players to our President. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and John Kerry must have really felt out of place where the Pres was getting ovations from 'black' people. The Pres moved gracefully and bantered with ease thru the room, while those jackasses looked rather forlorn...just as it should be after all their inappropriate, vicious speechifying in recent times. You could just see that it was soooo difficult for them to be pleasant. I bet they went home to kick and dog and devious further schemes of being the most pissy human they can be.

From USA Today: The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says... "There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?'"

There's a timeline here.

Of course the alerts are down, because the Global War on Terror is working.

You probably don't realize how much that sounds like something out of "1984".

Maybe the kind of HSP proposed by Democrats, who want to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, healthcare, and free college education?

When it comes down to it, that's what Bush wants to do too. Remember the "good-hearted people" who just want to come here to "do the jobs Americans won't do"?

What I said above applies here: if Kerry were president, and he supported open borders just as much as Bush, the difference is that the GOP would oppose him rather than support him in his efforts to do harm to the U.S.

Yeeeeaaaahhh right, John...

It's easier to blame an outside influence....It had nothing to do with the fact that you look like a Munster...

Well, is SHOULDN'T have to do with that but alot of it probably did....The only advantage to electing a zombie is that they're already dead and can stay in office long after everyone else...

Oh drat! There's the 2 term limit! Never mind about the eternal zombie prez...he he he...

Sorry, it's early and I don't have my coffee yet...

I don't see anything in the USA Today article or the quote you pasted that implies terror alerts for political reasons. Questioning the reason does not make it political. Is this another one of your hypotheticals, TLB?

So, here's one for you... WHAT IF, the terror alert was not raised and there WAS an attack? You'd have much to say about inaction then. I would say the administration was playing it safe.

What Kerry meant was

'9/11 - because whenever I have to deal with the WOT or national security I get exposed for the elitist anti-American phony that I am. That's why it sucks being a Democrat. I have to pretend that I have a clue and think it's serious and I keep slipping up an d saying things like 'it should be a criminal matter' or 'we don't have enough troops in Iraq' when what I really mean is we should just surrender now but all the idiots that I should rule, I mean the voters, are too stupid to understand the nuance of my use of the French language. They don't even speak French, where surrender just rolls off the tongue.'

JFK

Another point for TLB: We know Al Queda wants to influence elections by using terror attacks. It even worked in Spain. So is it shocking that leading up to an election here, they could have been trying extra hard to make something, anything, happen?

Doesn't seem to be that far of a stretch. Considering Kerry lost by a (relatively) slim percentage it's probably safe to say his military/security policy looked weak compared to the right's. Plus the whole momentum of 9/11 was still being felt.
To ignore 9/11 and national security issues is not being very realistic. And to say Kerry is blaming Osama is just spin.

When will realistically looking at the 2004 election and challenge become fashionable, instead of just bashing?

The press never mentioned Kerry's credentials, and even book, on the new kind of terrorism, or even his BCCI experience. The GOP used fear-mongering wthoughout and the timing of the Osama tape more than suspicious.

Considering he probably won, threading the needle and playing the margins were necessary for a public that at election time liked Bush and the war at 55%, and believed the link of Iraq and 911 at 70%. This was Kerry vs. a very big opposition.

We have to do better about supporting our candidates with a heavy dose of reality. This is not an exercise in anger management.