Giuliani vs. Kerry

Who'd you rather have on your side in the debate over national security: the hard-charging prosecutor turned hero of 9/11 or the Vietnam veteran turned anti-war activist? I suspect that a poll asking only this question would do more than most to reveal the country's ideological leanings.

Soft on Terror? Yes, he is.

I am pleased to see that McCain surrogates are finally picking the low-hanging fruit and criticizing Obama for his naivete regarding terrorism:

Former CIA head James Woosley: “This is an extremely dangerous and an extremely naive approach to terrorism.”

McCain aide Randy Scheunemann: “He really does not understand the nature of the enemies we face.”

I have long believed that McCain's odds in this election are better than is widely believed. Democrats are simply not serious on issues of national security, and haven't been for at least 30 years. By emphasizing that we do, in fact, live in a dangerous world, McCain can expose Obama's kumbaya approach to world affairs for what it is.

Credit Where It's Due

John Hinderaker at Power Line speculates as to whether US intelligence experts have long known the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. What Hinderaker postulates is that the Bush administration has been so successful in thwarting terrorist attacks after 9/11 in large part as a result of intelligence intercepted from close bin Laden associates.

Whether this speculation is true or not, I think that the lack of a terrorist attack in the US after 9/11 is one of the unsung triumphs of the Bush administration. No one that I knew on September 12, 2001 believed that we would not see another attack of similar magnitude for the next 8 years. Despite its much-publicized failings, the Bush administration deserves our admiration for this achievement.