We were attacked within our borders during both the Clinton and Bush administrations; the second one (9/11) much more effective and devastating than the first. Both attacks were staged at a time when the economy was struggling and a new President was early in his first term. This was purposeful planning on the part of the terrorists. Their objective is not to simply kill people, but rather, to alter our way of life by causing people to live in constant fear and to damage the economic prosperity we enjoy. The high-level mission of Islamo-fascism is to use terrorism to weaken the economy, causing the federal government take more and more control and then expand this federal control to an eventual dictatorship where Islamic Sharia Law could be established.

The first bombing of the World Trade Center was somewhat botched, but the 9/11 attack was quite successful. The result was that the stock market tanked, people stayed at home and most were worried about when and where the next attack would occur. Osama bin Laden, after taking credit for the attack, fled to the Afghan mountains where he knew he would be safe from the week or two’s worth of bombing he expected to get as retaliation. However, President Bush had other thoughts on the matter. He decided that his country was not going to respond to these terrorist attacks with simple retaliation as was done in response to previous attacks. He was not going to have his country live in constant fear and have our way of living dictated by terrorists. Instead, he took an approach to prevent more attacks by destroying and disrupting terrorist networks that were existing and future threats.

Instead of just hunting down bin Laden, he went into Afghanistan with the objective of taking out terrorist control of that country and giving it back to the people. With the people in control, it would no longer be a safe haven for terrorists to plan and train for their next attack against the United States. The other threat to our country was the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. Saddam had a long rap sheet that included using chemical weapons on his own citizens, sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel and invading other countries. He needed to be taken out before he had the chance to obtain and use biological or nuclear weapons that could kill thousands or millions. Although the President got faulty evidence on how far along the development of these weapons were, it was only a matter of time after the weapons inspectors had left that Saddam would reconstitute his weapons program. President Bush’s decision to take down the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003 was bold and necessary and the success of the U.S. military and coalition forces in carrying it out has eliminated a major terrorist threat. Additionally, Iraq now had the opportunity form a democratic government that would no longer tolerate terrorist networks living among them. Then, the opportunity presented itself where bin Laden thought he could effectively counter President Bush’s objectives in Iraq. When the Saddam holdouts and other insurgents were effective in killing Iraqis and American troops, bin Laden added his Al Qaeda network to try and defeat American will and return Iraq to a terrorist-supporting regime. Despite an initially flawed military strategy and the “war is lost” wailing of liberal politicians and the media, the President was steadfast in continuing to help the Iraqis solidify their new government. At the urging of General Petraeus and Senator McCain, the President implemented the “surge” strategy which has significantly reduced violence against our troops and Iraqi citizens. The Al Qaeda ranks have been dissipated and they are on the verge of giving up the fight in Iraq and switching their efforts to Afghanistan. With 12 of the 18 provinces now under Iraqi control, victory appears to be achievable.

President Bush to this day has not been able to get the majority of the American people to understand his mission to protect the country from future attacks and has suffered dismal approval ratings because of it. Left-wing activists, politicians and the media have tried to undercut his efforts at every turn and their propaganda and traitorous actions have been largely successful. In spite of this, President Bush has accomplished what he set out to do following 9/11. Over the past seven years, he has kept at bay the next major 9/11-level attack and has thwarted approximately 30 smaller attacks before they had a chance to be carried out. This was accomplished with a prevention program using finance and communications surveillance, effective interrogation techniques, terrorist watch lists and military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. History will be very favorable to him as a war president. He also pushed through tax cuts that revived the faltering economy and got it growing again until the collapse of the housing market and subprime loan debacle that formed the catalyst for the current financial crisis.

Unfortunately, the current conditions present a “perfect storm” for terrorists to attempt another major attack. The convergence of a major financial crisis with a new, untested President is a scenario where a successful attack could have devastating long term repercussions. The security gaps emerging when the new administration is transitioning personnel and policy will provide the best opportunity to put the attack plan into motion and successfully execute it. With U.S. economy already staggering against the ropes and its repercussions being felt in the global economy, an attack at the magnitude of 9/11 could be the potential knockout blow that the terrorists are seeking. The federal government has already socialized a good chunk of the economy with the recent $700 billion bailout and, after the attack, would likely be the looked at to take more control. The success, frequency and impact of each subsequent attack will determine how fast the terrorized citizens of this country drive the government towards greater and greater control of the economy and loss of their individual liberties. Once the federal government has all the power, a President with a majority party can start to run the country as a dictatorship. The final step in the terrorist strategy is to give the President an offer that he or she can’t refuse; incorporate Sharia Law to stop future attacks.

This nightmare scenario does not have to happen. The solution is simple; keep up the efforts to prevent the attacks and allow free market capitalism to spur a strong and growing economy. With the election only a few days away, we all have the opportunity to vote for candidates that we believe will be the best choices to continue to keep us safe from terrorist attacks and implement policies that will ensure that the economy is strong enough to rebound from another successful attack.

As the campaigns come to an end, it is clear which presidential candidate wants to limit federal control of the economy through reduced taxes and spending and ignite the capitalist engine that drives the economy. We also know which candidate wants greater federal control through increased taxes and increased spending.

The missed opportunity in the presidential debates was the question, “There have been no successful terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. What specific measures would you take as President to prevent an attack from happening on your watch?” Both candidates have been less than clear on whether they would continue with the successful prevention measures used by the current administration.

It really boils down to the candidate whose demonstrated character, judgment and leadership would make him the best choice to be Commander-in-Chief during this time of war. Which one will be the most committed to keep us safe and achieve victory over Islamo-fascism?