FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was in Pakistan today meeting with government and military leaders there in an effort to mend relations between the two nations.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/16/art.kerry.pakistan.jpg caption="John Kerry listens to Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik prior to a meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in Islamabad."]
Tensions remain high three weeks after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad. But Kerry says the U.S. and Pakistan have agreed to cooperate on future terror targets, and Pakistani officials have committed to finding new ways fight terror within that nation's borders.
We'll see about that.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will also travel to Pakistan in the coming weeks.
It is part of the Obama Administration's careful balancing act - keep up foreign relations while staying tough on terror; especially as the president's campaign for re-election in 2012 kicks into a higher gear.
President Obama enjoyed a much-needed boost in his approval ratings after the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 1, but according to the latest Gallup poll, his approval ratings have dropped back down to 46 percent - which is where they were prior to the bin Laden raid, and right around the lowest levels of his presidency.
Being tough on terror might be a good strategy for winning over American voters. But it took us ten years to find bin Laden. And what if there is another attack between now and the 2012 election?
Here’s my question to you: Would a terror attack on the U.S. make you more or less likely to vote to re-elect President Obama?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Bryan in Colorado:
Doesn't matter at all. Remember, recent history shows that Bush was reelected after the worst terror attack in history on U.S. soil. Obama rejuvenated the search for the world’s number 1 terrorist and was relentless at finding him. Bush pretty much gave up on it. There is nothing this president has to prove on the terror front.
Steve in Illinois:
More. He knows how to track 'em down now…and will!
Cheryl:
That would depend on how it was handled. If it was handled like Katrina, no, never. But Obama did the right thing with Osama bin Laden.
Rose:
I don't plan to vote for Obama, no matter what. If there was a terror attack on the U.S. prior to the election, he would be the one to blame. It would have happened on his watch, and after the killing of bin Laden I would say chances of an attack are now greater.
Duane in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania:
I don't think G.W. Bush would have been reelected if not for the attacks of 9/11. It's what you can get the American people to believe after the attack.
M.:
Based on his intellect alone, I am going to vote for him anyway. You may have forgotten which party got us in this debacle, but I haven't.
Bruce:
I don't live my life worrying about some nut coming after me. Hell, we have enough of them living here in the U.S. I sure don't vote based on that. And they call everything now a terror attack. They want us to live in fear. Well I'm not going to. What they are doing to the dollar is the real terror attack.
Lou:
You could bomb me, chase me with bees, move the boogey man into the house next door....nothing you could do to me would keep me from voting for Obama again. It's not just that I have every confidence in his leadership. But it is also the risk of having Republicans in control of the House, Senate and Presidency that scares me to death.