Who best to lead?

Vice President Dick Cheney said the Lieberman defeat raised questions about whether the Democratic Party was prepared to lead the nation during dangerous times.

Well, is the Republican Party?

We read that the TSA diverted a large part of its explosives-detection research budget to operations, using it to hire screeners. The latest terror plot was discovered and stopped by the British, not by US agencies. What we hear from the Republicans is that "we need to fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here" but little seems to have been done to destroy the terrorist's ability to hit us "over here" since they are obviously still capable of planning complex operations and coming dangerously close to implementing them.

The most recent "report card" by the former 9/11 Commission members said both Congress and the President had failed to implement the reforms necessary to prevent and prepare for a future terrorist attack. The grades were dismal: five F's, 12 D's, nine C's, and only one A-minus. "Despite more than four years of legislation, executive orders and presidential directives," a Government Accountability Office report concluded, the Bush administration has "yet to comprehensively improve sharing of counterterrorism information."

Debunking the Cheny/Bush Myths
By Alan L. Roland
http://www.opednews.com

If this leadership was doing the kind of job that they want you to believe the Democrats cannot do, we would have caught or killed the masterminds. We would have disrupted their communication networks. We would have frozen or confiscated their money. We would have rendered them unable to plan or coordinate sophisticated attacks.

Instead what we have done is lose the sympathy of the entire free world, abandon a worthy battle against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, embroil ourselves in an apparently endless hellhole of violence in Iraq, and support and encourage a tempest of violence in Lebanon.

And all of this is supposed to have made the world, and us, safer?