In the run up to the American presidential elections we will be asking a panel of voters to share their views on the key issues. Here they react to the findings of the 9/11 commission.
Although I was pleased with the commission's findings, the results do not affect my voting decision.
All three candidates have their pros and cons, so voting is really a decision of which one I would be happiest with.
MEET THE PANEL
Name: Rhonda Buie
Lives: San Diego, California
Current voting intention: Democrat
In 10 words or less:
"Wife, student, amateur artist, imperfect and independent observer"
I still plan to vote for Kerry, as I feel Bush is not considering fully his responsibilities and actions, and unfortunately, Nader has little chance of actually making the presidency due to the fact he's not in one of the top two parties.
Concerning safety, I feel the same as I have ever felt.
I cannot say if any of the suggestions given in the commission's report will be heeded, and it's starting to look as if the security precautions laid out after 9/11 are becoming lax.
We are back to our preoccupations, and our leaders are back to their politics.
Homeland security is as important to me as any other issue.
Our next president must be actively involved in the process of maintaining that security. It is vital that the candidates understand that homeland security is not a buzz phrase to win votes and approval, but a very real and active issue.
I am extremely tired of the bi-polar party system in the United States. Bush has made a show of the 9/11 attacks and wants to get re-elected for another four years. Four-hundred thousand dollars and sitting at the helm of power is quite a draw.
Troy Banther, Portales, USA
I completely agree. This is not an issue for politicos to use to attract swing voters. George Bush has already capitalized on our fear of another attack, yet he has shown little (if anything) in the way of action toward preventing another one. Invading Iraq only incited more recruitment. The Afghanistan campaign is failing miserably. And now he's trying to convince us he's a man of peace?! Give us a break, George.
Eric Andrade, New York, USA
The Commission findings indicate that those responsible for maintaining homeland security failed miserably and their ineffectiveness caused the death of almost 3,000 Americans. There is no justification for this situation in a society that boasts of its efficiency above the rest of the world.
Luis Perez, Panama City, Panama
"Wife, student, amateur artist, imperfect and independent observer". Sounds like you have a lot on your mind. Homeland security is not just a political slogan. The issue is so important to us that we created entire department as well as political dialog. Few years ago you couldn't even express you opinion on this subject because the subject despite its existence was totally ignored. Ironically, the people who are protecting you and me are the once you resent the most.
Just because you do not feel Nader can win does not mean you should not vote for him. There is no better way of saying "I am fed up with the current politics" then to vote for someone who does not partake in them. If every one who is tired of two party politics voted for Nader, he might be able to win.
Andrew Bauerfeld, Dallas, USA