When the Next Islamic Attack happens . . .

. . . here in the American Homeland . . .

whom do you want to be at the helm of the ship of state?


Of the people vying for the next presidency of the United States, who is best fit to take charge in such an emergency?

Think about this at length (and depth).

Imagine, envision, a disaster approaching or even surpassing that of 9-11. The nation freezes. What to do? Emergency personnel are out and about, but the citizenry is helpless. Where did the strike come from? Who was responsible? What should we do? Stay home? Go out?

When 9-11 happened the immediate response was pitiful. Then later, much later, hitting the Afghanistan training camps of bin Laden's al qaeda was one response--but what about right after the catastrophe occurred?

The man occupying the nation's highest office and his next-in-the-chain-of-command are whisked to safety, but what will the top man, the Commander-in-Chief, say or do to reassure us that the situation is under control, the perpetrators, wherever they have scurried to (if not to hell), will be found and eliminated?

. . . and those who trained, outfitted, financed, and sent them will not escape punishment, (as they did last time) whether kings, emirs, sheiks, imams, mullahs or whatever.

(and will he follow up immediately on those decisions)

Whom do you want to make the decision of response?

A stumbling unsure person?

Or one seasoned and accustomed to taking charge, making quick decisions, and acting--not hesitating?

Think about it.

Do you want a show-person or one who has thought this scenario out--long before he/she occupies the nation's highest office?