Security is a negative issue. Winning the war is positive. Campaigning with the former, which I expect every presidential candidate to do--especially the Democrats since they are so weak militarily--will lose the popular opinion against anyone campaigning with the latter.

I don't like all the "security" we have now much less talk about making America more secure. I don't want to see a competition between Republicans and Democrats about who can make us more secure and I certainly don't want to see any of it in action. We don't need more security, we need more freedom and more freedom requires winning the war.

I am looking for any credible candidate who makes his or her central issue winning the war the landslide winner over anyone talking tough security. I think Thompson is going to come out with a "winning the war" theme and I think he has built-in credibility that is his to lose.

The ever shrewd Senator Joe Lieberman sees the opportunity and beat Thompson to the punch with his tough talk on Iran over Memorial Day. Doesn't matter, Thompson will still stick with the winner. Everyone else still in the running down the road will follow suit because there is no way to counteract "winning the war" except with "it can't be won and that's why we need more security."

But of course I may be wrong. More security may be what we need.

No documents found