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.
The commission's proposals follow much of what President Bush has corrected from the last administration.
In a short time, this president has created the Department of Homeland Security, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, the Northern Command and the Patriot Act.
MEET THE PANEL
Name: Jim Hill
Lives: Sudbury, Massachusetts
Job: Equipment finance manager
Current voting intention: Republican
In 10 words or less: "Family man, business owner, community volunteer, gardener, fisherman, sports fan"
This administration has taken a true look at our traditional allies and enemies and reassessed the facts.
Homeland Security is the most important issue in this upcoming election.
The 9/11 Commission is doing what the Senate Intelligence Committee should have been doing but didn't - continually review America's security situation and provide necessary direction as it evolves.
I feel safer that Bush will put our security ahead of UN opinion made up of dictatorships, kingdoms, and communist or socialist-based governments.
I feel safer that we are finally admitting the risks to the US from these governments and their motives.
Kerry and Edwards have failed to secure this country when given the opportunity.
Kerry, a former Intelligence Committee member, who ignored risks at Boston's airports, pre-9/11 and Edwards, a current member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, both failed in their duty in a most humiliating way.
I'm convinced Bush/Cheney is the best option for our country.
I agree with Jim about the UN. The vast majority of UN members are dictatorships with shocking human rights records. In an open vote, democracies such as the UK, USA, Germany or France have the same voting power as Zimbabwe, North Korea or Botswana. Any organisation that has Libya chairing its human rights panel has lost all credibility.
Peter, Nottingham, UK
There is indeed plenty of blame to go around as far as the 9/11 attacks go. I am always curious though about people who are not from the US who consistently feel like they have a better grasp of what is going on here than the people who actually live here. If Americans are indeed arrogant, it seems to be common ground with the rest of the world.
I don't agree with Mr Hill, but I'm tired of annoying and condescending foreigners lecturing us like children. Just because somebody sees an issue differently does not mean he or she doesn't understand it. Enough with the arrogance. Most Americans understand that people may see the same thing differently. It is we who should be lecturing you about tolerance for diversity and keeping an open mind.
Shawn, Washington, DC, USA
Funny, Mr Hill seems to appreciate what the 9/11 Commission has done, yet he completely fails to acknowledge that Mr Bush was against the creation of the 9/11 Commission and barely consented to appear before it. On these facts alone, Mr Bush should not be re-elected.
Lara A, MD, USA
Jim Hill unfortunately seems to be the odd one out of the six panel members. They all seem to have political leanings and know who they will vote for, but all of them except Jim realise there is plenty of blame to go around. The last three administrations, intelligence community and congress all dropped the ball. Jim seems typical of the far right conservative - blame the UN, blame your opponents, blame anyone that can help disguise the fact that current administration, just like previous administrations and the intelligence community, all messed up. Putting all the blame on Bush and Cheney is wrong but trying to ignore their mistakes like Jim and the far right seem to be doing is scandalous and will not help prevent another attack.
Sean, Boston, USA
"UN opinion made up of dictatorships, kingdoms, and communist or socialist-based governments." It is this kind of attitude that any other kind of social or economic system other than that of the US is somehow less valid, or its people less valuable that has led to the belief that the US has a moral imperative to enforce its own systems on other countries. For the US to be safe, all that has to happen is for the US to stop treating the rest of the world as its playground.
Julian, Barcelona, Spain
To say that Kerry was somehow responsible for security lapses at Logan Airport in Boston is absurd. Prior to 9/11, airliner security was the responsibility of the airlines - under the oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Dave, Carmel, CA, USA
Unbelievable! Mr Hill blames failure on a Senator for not protecting an airport in his backyard. Who then do we blame for lapses of security New York and the president's official city of residence Washington DC? Will Americans appeal to reason in this year's elections or rather be blinded by party politics? This 2004 election is a true test for democracy itself.
Steve E, Toronto, Canada
It sounds as if Jim Hill wants the US to become more isolationist than ever, which bodes ill if Bush is re-elected.
Moyna Prince, Miami, FL, USA
Anyone that believes that ignoring the rest of the world's opinion can somehow lead us towards being safer is either uninformed or just plain ignorant.
Nate, Reston, VA
Jim is correct. Kerry and Edwards are the natural heirs to the Sandy Berger theory of self-defence, i.e. passivity. The 9/11 report details how he played a major role in discouraging direct action against Bin Laden, coming up with objections every step of the way. And until a few days ago, he was John Kerry's advisor on National Security.
Bob C., New York City, USA
Jim Hill writes: "Kerry and Edwards have failed to secure this country when given the opportunity." May I ask when they have been given the opportunity other than in your dreams, Mr Hill? The only person who really has been given the opportunity - Bush - has failed. I sometimes wonder how Americans can be so oblivious to what's going on in their own country.
Cheryl, Toronto, Canada
Cheryl, in Toronto, writes: "I sometimes wonder how Americans can be so oblivious to what's going on in their own country." Cheryl, we're not all so oblivious; but, you'd never know it by watching the mainstream, Republican controlled, media that most likely is responsible for your opinion of "all" Americans being oblivious. Please know that there are millions of us who are truly horrified at the turn our government has taken over the past three years, and please be very concerned that we, the real majority, may never be able to reverse the damage that's been done by this administration.
Chris Edmonds, Walnut Creek, California, USA
Another typical Bush/Cheney apologist! It is Bush who has failed to secure our country in light of the information recently revealed in the 9/11 Senate report. Kerry/Edwards are not at fault. It is the mistakes of the current administration that is. Mr Hill appears to be in dreamland when he comments that just because Bush put his signature on a piece of paper 'creating' the Dept of Homeland Security, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, and the Northern Command, we are somehow safer. Are we? Not according to many of our former and present career governmental officials, our former and present military commanders, and the report itself. You see, in order to lend substance to form, one must actually fund these programs adequately. These agencies are either under funded or not funded nearly enough to make much of a difference.
Mary Broderick, Southborough, MA, USA
Bravo! I agree with everything said by Mr Hill. He makes a very strong point regarding Boston Airport's security measures - in John Kerry's backyard. Remember also that Mr Kerry voted for the war in Iraq.
Brian M, Columbus, OH, USA
Is this guy for real? George Bush has increased the appeal for the disillusioned around the world to join groups set on attacking the United States. His war of aggression in Iraq being the worst example.
Michael Heiderstadt, Mamaroneck, NY, USA
How naive to think that you as an American are now safer because President Bush has taken more human rights away from you, the American people, by setting up his new agencies and the Patriot Act.
Ian, Edinburgh, Scotland
Ian: Name one right that George Bush has taken away. And Michael if you haven't noticed, there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since Bush took the fight to the Islamic extremists. Wake up, get over the Gore loss of 2000, and see the big picture. Bush has done more to protect you and all Americans in three years than Clinton did in eight.
Jeff, Atlanta, GA, USA
Jeff, look at the power given to the government with the Patriot Act Ian was commenting on. Look at individuals detained for suspected terrorism, held without lawyers, without charges, or a trial, and then released after months when no longer deemed a threat. I say these illustrate that there have been some rights taken from the people. And in response to the comment that Bush has done more in three years than Clinton did in eight, under whom did 9/11 happen under? Bush, not Clinton. Under whom did this war come, with failed intelligence? Bush, not Clinton.
Kevin Jones, NY, USA