In other news, Mrs. Lincoln did otherwise enjoy the play.

How does that go "locking the barn after the horse was ah......terrorized".

"The vast majority of Americans to have ever been killed by foreign terrorists were killed under George W. Bush's watch"

that just doesn't make any sense - let's see, the vast majority of americans that were killed by germans and japanese in history occured during WW2. So clearly FDR was to blame?

lets clarify the definition of terrorists to be the actual threat we face - islamofascists. there have been no major attacks since 911. its just a fact. the anthrax case is not related to the war on terror.

If you only look at Bush's final seven years, you'll see that he was as good as every other president at preventing terrorist attacks. And if you include his entire presidency, you'll see that he was by far the worst.

By far the worst.

And the D.C. sniper wasn't a terrorist? What was he then, a miffed tourist?

I would also classify the Beltway Sniper attacks as a terrorist attack, and those occurred in October 2002.

not to mention the fact that 43 was warned, in advance, by the ringleader...

Add me to the group that thinks "homeland" is creepy. Sounds very Sovietlike.

These guys are still spinning their incompetence.

lets clarify the definition of terrorists to be the actual threat we face - islamofascists
sarah

"Islamofascist." Lovely.

All combining two inherently inconsistent terms in an attempt to make them twice as perjorative does is make you look like an imbecile.

The argument would be more compelling if there was evidence of a serious terrorist attempt since 9/11. Oh yeah, there was the shoe bomber, who was stopped by a flight attendant, and the case in England that resulted in banning shampoo bottles, but that was stopped by the Brits. There were also the Madrid bombings and the London subway, which if nothing else, should remind us that we're not invulnerable. Bush supporter claims of success are little more than a new way of saying "bring 'em on."

lets clarify the definition of terrorists to be the actual threat we face - islamofascists.
No, lets not. How about we just continue using it to mean motherfuckers who think its OK to kill innocent people to further their political agenda?

"...the vast majority of americans that were killed by germans and japanese..."

The Germans and Japanese weren't terrorists. They were/are nation states that we declared war on.

You are comparing apples to rocks.

Americans died in the Bali nightclub bombing and other terrorist acts, but those weren't in "the homeland," so they don't count.

I'd be willing to give any president a pass on responsibility for 9/11 (even if any president was warned a month earlier). If it had happened on Al Gore's or John McCain's watch (and it probably would have), I wouldn't cast stones at them either.

But if this president is going to rely on his post-9/11 record to burnish his legacy, then taking into account that one extra day, he failed miserably.

"If you only look at Bush's final seven years, you'll see that he was as good as every other president at preventing terrorist attacks."

Technically false. (There were terrorist attacks on US soil under other presidents, notably Clinton, who "failed to prevent" WTC1 and OKC, and even if you count Anthrax and Beltway more people died in OKC.) Hyperbole is not necessary and undercuts valid points, like "if you include his entire presidency, you'll see that he was by far the worst."

Pearl Harbor was not an act of terrorism, it was an act of war. If you define war as terrorism, then the US is the biggest terrorist in the world.

By far the most USians died of terrorism under Bush, and why we're supposed to ignore 911 is beyond me.

that just doesn't make any sense - let's see, the vast majority of americans that were killed by germans and japanese in history occured during WW2. So clearly FDR was to blame?

It was FDR's responsibility (though not his alone - the Congress declared war too, I believe). As for "blame" that depends on whether entering the war was justified or not, a separate question. But either way, it is part of FDR's legacy.

lets clarify the definition of terrorists to be the actual threat we face - islamofascists. there have been no major attacks since 911. its just a fact. the anthrax case is not related to the war on terror.

Ah, well, it's easy to win arguments if you just define all inconvenient facts out of existence. Why not go the extra mile, and just define terrorism as something that only happens on non-Tuesdays. Then Dubya's record really shines!

lets clarify the definition of terrorists to be the actual threat we face - islamofascists

As DJ said, there is no such thing as "islamofascism," it's just a term that cowards use to justify their fear.

Secondly, many militant groups aren't Islamic: the Tamil Tigers, NLFT, ETA, the Kahane Movement, the PKK, the Shining Path, Christian Identity, et al.

Finally, if it's swarthy men that you're afraid of you need to realize that most Islamic groups have different goals and are bitter enemies. And there's no possible way for these tiny groups to "defeat" us and make us wear burkas, etc., as is regularly warned against. We are an enormous nation and the world's largest military power.

I thought I saw something last week about an attack on the NY subways that was called off by AQ because it wouldn't have killed more people than 9/11.

Anybody else see that? 'cause now I can't seem to find it.

My wife will be glad to see the last of the Bush administration. She is really tired of me yelling back at the teevee. Every time a Bush apologist says "We have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here," I shout back, "WE'RE JUST SAVING THEM THE FUCKING PLANE FARE!"

By getting the U.S. into Iraq on false pretenses, Bush has Facilitated the deaths of thousands of Americans since 9/11. Throw in Deaths from Katrina, a broken Health care system, and rampant poverty, and Bush has probably been the worst impact on the general health and well being of americans ever.

Interesting that he didn't see fit to talk about the State Department's annual report on worldwide terrorist incidents -- incidents that increased every single year of this so-called "war on terror," forcing the Bush administration to first try to cook the books, followed by no longer issuing the report since it was making him look bad.

Link to a 2005 article on the State Department report:

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

...

The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report. Critics said the move was designed to shield the government from questions about the success of its effort to combat terrorism by eliminating what amounted to the only year-to-year benchmark of progress.

Although the State Department said the data would still be made public by the new National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which prepares the information, officials at the center said no decision to publish the statistics has been made.

The controversy comes a year after the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents. That became an election-year issue, as Democrats said the Bush administration tried to inflate its success in curbing global terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Facts is facts, and the fact is, we've had no more 9/11's since 9/11. Whether it is because Bush stepped up our game in the global hunt for bad guys or because they decided that they had accomplished their mission after 9/11 and could stand down, let the arguments begin.

The thing to remember is that since 9/12 Darth Cheney has not suffered from the abject fear that someone was flying an airplane directly at the White House (as they actually were on 9/11) to kill HIM.

Since he has never since suffered that personal terror over his own continued existence, every diminishment of the Constitution, our country's honour and reputation, and the lost lives of U.S. Servicemen, women and civilians is worth it.

If you are a chicken hawk slime bastard named Richard Cheney.

The rest of us might have a different view of things...

Let's be clear , they don't count 9/11 because it was Clinton's fault. Bush didn't really become President until 9/12.
This would be insulting just on its face but the truth is even more damning if you look at the facts. The Bushies openly mocked the threat of Bin laden and Clinton's concern of radical fringe groups. They declared the only threat was from state sponsored terrorism. When is proved to be false and their hurbris cost us 3,000 lives they could not face the truth and continued to insist that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. They went as far as to invade Iraq to cover the mistakes that led to 9/11.

This is just grossly unfair.
Secretary of State Rice assured me there was no one who foresaw planes being used as weapons before 9/11 except the FBI and the Pentagon in their training manuals.

What do you want from the guy?

Frankly, I do wonder why Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton didn't suggest the deadbolt on the cockpit thing. It's not like terrorists were new with Osama bin laden. Under different circumstances, this albatross might have been hung on any of their necks. Was Bush just that much more careless than the others? Maybe. He did replace an awful lot of experienced people in the trenches with political kinsmen. Meritocracy has its benefits.

Sarah wrote:

that just doesn't make any sense - let's see, the vast majority of americans that were killed by germans and japanese in history occured during WW2. So clearly FDR was to blame?

lets clarify the definition of terrorists to be the actual threat we face - islamofascists. there have been no major attacks since 911. its just a fact. the anthrax case is not related to the war on terror.

I am writing: Please, this is not redstate, go back to that cesspool u came from. People here actually think-type, not type-think.

Yglesias was quoted...
And Bush took office on January 20, 2001. Nine or so months later by far the largest terrorist attack on American soil was perpetrated.

The first attack on the WTCs was bigger. It just happened to fail. If they had succeeded, i.e., drove in two vans instead of one or parked it at a better site to bring down the towers, it would brought down at least one tower immediately, killing every single person in that tower and lots in neighboring buildings that would have failed too. Not sure why that attack gets the "no harm/no foul" treatment.

I know George "Gentleman's C" Bush was probably used to professors dropping his lowest score when they were grading him, but I'm pretty sure you don't get to do that when you're President and your lowest score cost nearly 3,000 people their lives.

How come whenever Republicans talk about Bush's success in preventing terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 there is no discussion about whether the same record could have been achieved utilizing our existing intelligence apparatus and without suspending the Constitution and militarizing our government?

This "expand the military and starve all other governmental functions" approach to running the country is proving to be just a Texas oil man's fantasy of what managing a government really means.

I get the sense that liberals really dont understand the threat we face - the terrorists hate you for your behavior and beliefs (immorality, lack of faith, gay agenda, abortion, the whole list really). being 'nice' or 'trying to understand them' will not work.

it doesnt matter if they are not a nation/state (which evidentally you are using to distinguish between war and terror). they are believers in a religion, that religion is islam, and religion trumps nationality to them (tough for liberals to understand since they do not believe in either). they want you to submit to allah. they pray for the 12th hidden mahdi to return to eliminate the immoral infidels (ahmenijad believes this).

our strong military wont matter when there are liberals ready to submit without a fight, so as to not hurt anyone's 'feeeelings'.

Bush's record of keeping America safe from terrorist attacks since 2002.

And Mark David Chapman hasn't shot any Beatles since 1980.

Um, Sarah, the only leader who was ever interested in being "nice" to the terrorist-aiding Taliban was Bush, who wanted to work with them to build a freaking pipeline, for God's sake. No one is too scummy for the Bushes to do business with. He and his family are STILL in bed with the bin Ladens, and whisked them out of the country, sans security briefings, on 9/12.

And as a liberal, patriotic Christian, I can safely say that your claim that liberals don't believe in country or religion is, well, as idiotic as the rest of your post.

Also, can someone explain to me how Bush and his shills can trumpet 9/11 as the defining moment of our era, and then say it "doesn't count" when we're grading Bush's record on terrorism?

Is the fact of our financial meltdown any relation to terrorism? Seems more damage has been done by the collapse of Wall St., Insurance, Housing/Mortgage and the Automotive Industry than 4 planes appropriated by so-called terrorists. Or, maybe that is the outcome of 9/11, so, in fact, Bush has not protected us from a terrorist attack on our nation.

Why does no one make the connection? What were the names of the buildings in NYC that were "bombed"? World Trade Center? And, what kind of companies were using those buildings?

Too many unanswered questions and too much ignorance of what is really happening.

peace,
st john

Sarah,

Between unilateral invasions of non-threatening nations and "submitting without a fight" there are literally thousands of effective alternatives to stopping terrorism.

Your willful, unpatriotic ignorance of history is alarming and causes your fellow citizens real harm. That's why people like you should never hold public office.

And thanks, luv, but don't worry about hurting our feelings by disagreeing with us. We're liberals. Not only are we used to insults from the likes of you but know how to take it.

How come whenever Republicans talk about Bush's success in preventing terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 there is no discussion about whether the same record could have been achieved utilizing our existing intelligence apparatus and without suspending the Constitution and militarizing our government?
Posted by: pj in jesusland

I'm no fan of the increase in surveillance, but you can make the argument that the string of terrorist attacks (first WTC, African embassies, USS Cole, 9/11) stopping and the increase in surveillance are related. If we didn't need to do those things, why did we suffer the attacks we did?

sjrsm: We had AMPLE warning about 9/11 -- tons of correspondence in Arabic went untranslated; a majority of the highjackers were on government watch lists that were never forwarded to the airlines; Presidential briefings about bin Laden determined to attack in the US went ignored; warnings from the FBI Arizona field office about Middle Eastern men taking flight classes with no interest in learning how to land planes were ignored; increased chatter in the months preceding 9/11 that went un-acted upon; and a government informant actually living with two of the highjackers in San Diego but not alerting authorities; an FBI Minnesota field office request to seize and examine materials from the "20th highjacker," who was in custody before 9/11, was denied.

The government had the "intelligence" -- just not the intelligence to use it and act upon it.

"...it's worth noting that U.S. troops have been subjected to terrorist attacks overseas, as have our allies."

So any attack on American troops is "terrorism" just because they're Americans? By that logic, the British could have considered the Americans who attacked British soldiers during the Revolutionary War "terrorists."

NoMorals wrote:

"No, lets not. How about we just continue using it to mean motherfuckers who think its OK to kill innocent people to further their political agenda?"

This sanctimoniousness has never impressed me. The U.S. and other countries worldwide kill innocent people to further their agenda. They may not specifically target them, but they take military action (bombings, etc.) that they know will inevitably kill many civilians. Those civilians are just as dead as anyone killed on 9/11.

In the legal system, one doesn't always have to intentionally kill someone for the killing to be considered murder. If the killer knew what they were doing was extremely dangerous, but obviously didn't care and did it anyway, it can be considered "depraved indifference" murder. Applying this logic to the international level, the moral difference between "terrorists" and national governments isn't always as clear as people suggest. If I was going to be killed, I wouldn't care if the killing was "intentional" or not--I would just want it to be as quick and painless as possible.

sarah.

Who made you the 'islamic expert' the 'unsubstantiated, undocumented, unproven authority on terrorists' and what they believe?

I'd be careful about your claim to know or think you know what terrorists 'think.' Think about what you said and think of where you got this notion from. Is it from these so-called experts that have an agenda and lie every week on Fox News, Hannity, Rush, Bush, etc.

It's easy to ASSUME all sorts of things about these sh**heads but you really don't know and if that unfounded knowledge gives you comfort, fine. But if it's the basis for a political discussion or worse a policy discussion, you've just taken the first real step toward a solution based on ignorance or faux-knowledge. That we don't need.

they are believers in a religion, that religion is islam, and religion trumps nationality to them

You utterly fail both Islam 101 and Middle Eastern politics as well as ignoring all the earlier refutations of your blather.

SCIRI hates Al Qaeda and the Taliban, 99% of Islamic terrorists (a tiny group to beign with) are not looking for a universal caliphate, Al Qaeda members and indeed no Sunnis believe in the hidden Imam (not the "hidden Mahdi"), and Iran tried to reestablish normal diplomatic ties and even help in the Afghanistan invasion in 2002 and Bush told them to screw themselves and invaded their next door neighbor without reason and made them believe they were next.

If you're that afraid, I suggest you spend your time wisely cowering under the covers rather than waste time posting nonsense on a blog.

Wow, someone's actually trotting out the tired old "the American revolutionaries could have been considered terrorists!" chestnut to defend... wait for it... al Qaida! Creepy, creepy stuff.

Many of the US troops in Iraq are being killed by card-carrying terrorists, period. Those terrorists were not there before our troops were. Bush's war gave them a new battleground, to say nothing of a rallying cry to expand their ranks. Therefore those Americans are victims of terrorism which Bush not only didn't prevent, but actually enabled and fostered. Get it now?

sjrsm,

Good point, and aggressively pursuing intelligence at home and abroad is an essential anti-terrorist preventative measure.

But as far as fighting terrorism goes, I put a lot of the blame on the President's mistrust of any intelligence or policy that was not generated through the Department of Defense. DOJ generated good intelligence prior to 9/11. The UN accurately described the state of Iraqi WMD development. The State Department accurately predicted the consequences of the Iraq invasion's aftermath. All of it was ignored.

I view these failures as part of the whole GOP effort since Reagan to undermine and eliminate the civilian functions of our government. We see failures on the civilian side as well -- the failure to heed warnings about Katrina and its aftermath, the consistent warnings about the consequences of the housing bubble, even the SEC's failure to act on warnings about Bernie Madoff. I hope we can meaningfull mitigate the effects of global warming after ignoring warnings from our own government scientists for 20 years.

The GOP's ideological straightjacket and white-knuckled grip on the reins of power have made our country look a lot dumber, incompetent and corrupt than we actually are.

Those terrorists were not there before our troops were. Bush's war gave them a new battleground, to say nothing of a rallying cry to expand their ranks.
Posted by: gradysu

In fact, the terrorists proclaimed it THE battleground, the place where they were going to defeat us. And they lost. Instead of a caliphate they are being hunted down by their own Sunni brothers. So now they go back to Afghanipakistan and regroup.

lets clarify the definition of terrorists to be the actual threat we face - islamofascists.

I'm sure the survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing are very relived to find out that they weren't really the victims of terrorism since McVeigh and Nichols aren't Muslims.

lets clarify the definition of terrorists to be the actual threat we face - islamofascists. there have been no major attacks since 911. its just a fact.

Similarly, there were no major attacks by the Imperial Japanese Navy on Pearl Harbor after 12/7/41, so I think FDR should get points for that, don't you?

gradysu,

Try actually reading what I say before criticizing it. I was not "defending" al-Queda. I was objecting to the idea that attacks on American soldiers are automatically terrorism simply because they're Americans. What about that isn't clear to you? And if you define terrorism as attacking civilians (as many do) then none of the attacks on American troops count. That doesn't mean one has to approve of them. Almost all Americans would strongly disapprove of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but that doesn't mean it was terrorism.

And did you ever think that there might actually be Iraqis motivated to fight because they don't like being the victim of an unprovoked invasion? From what I have read, only a small percentage of the insurgents are foreigners. If the U.S. was invaded, many Americans would certainly fight back regardless of who the invader was.

I get the sense that liberals really dont understand the threat we face - the terrorists hate you for your behavior and beliefs (immorality, lack of faith, gay agenda, abortion, the whole list really).

Wait -- I thought immorality, lack of faith, gay agenda (personally, I use a gay day-planner instead), abortion, etc. was why the fundamentalist Christians hated us? So are you saying that the fundamentalist Christians (or, as I prefer, Christofascists) and the terrorists share the same beliefs?

Well, that would explain a lot.....

Lee: Try reading the original post before mouthing off. It says "US troops have been subject to terrorist attacks." That in no way states that attacks on US soldiers are "automatically" called terrorist attacks.

Then, try reading my post. I never called Iraqi insurgents terrorists; some are motivated by a desire to reclaim their country. I was specifically discussing al Qaida, trying to explain a basic point to you. Most of the al Qaida members in Iraq aren't even from the country; they are terrorists, plain and simple, opportunitistically taking advantage of the war Bush handed them. To pretend they are freedom fighters is patently ridiculous.

"In fact, the terrorists proclaimed it (Iraq) THE battleground, the place where they were going to defeat us. And they lost. Instead of a caliphate they are being hunted down by their own Sunni brothers. So now they go back to Afghanipakistan and regroup."

Congratulations are in order, sunbeam. There isn't a single sentence in the above gutblurt that ISN'T 100% Fail, and that's impressive.

For all the wrong reasons, naturally, but still - impressive.

gradysu,

"I never called Iraqi insurgents terrorists; some are motivated by a desire to reclaim their country."

I never said you did call them that--I was responding to Steve Benen's original post with my first comment. And again, I didn't say anything about al-Queda. I just took issue with what I considered a flawed definition of terrorism on Benen's part.

I'm no fan of the increase in surveillance, but you can make the argument that the string of terrorist attacks (first WTC, African embassies, USS Cole, 9/11) stopping and the increase in surveillance are related. If we didn't need to do those things, why did we suffer the attacks we did?

What on earth are you talking about? The string of terrorist attacks hasn't stopped -- if anything, it's increased exponentially under Bush. (see, e.g., reference to State Dept. report upthread). We've had many more attacks on embassies and military targets post 9/11 than the four attacks you cite under Clinton -- tens of thousands if you count the attacks in Iraq -- at the same time as we've increased surveillance dramatically.

Using your logic, I could posit that the increased surveillance actually caused the increase in attacks -- and, at the very least, seems to have done very little if nothing to diminish the amount.

Lee: We probably agree on more than we disagree on; I just think it was inaccurate to interpret the original post as implying that US troop attacks were "automatically" the work of terrorists. I think the point he was making, as others have made, is that by launching the Iraq war, Bush created a whole new opportunity for al Qaida -- in addition to the best recruiting tool they ever had -- and that therefore he is responsible not only for failing to prevent those terrorist attacks on US troops but for making them possible at all. So while they may not be in the "homeland," they are American victims of terrorism on (and because of) Bush's watch.

"Secretary of State Rice assured me there was no one who foresaw planes being used as weapons before 9/11 except the FBI and the Pentagon in their training manuals."

And Tom Clancy. Don't forget Tom Clancy. You can't tell me that the guys in the Bush administration have never read Debt of Honor.

If we didn't need to do those things, why did we suffer the attacks we did?

Because Bush/Cheney ignored the intelligence and warnings, and didn't consider terrorism a priority before 9/11.
That makes as much sense, or more, than your "we should have been spying on Americans" illogic.

The first attack on the WTCs was bigger. It just happened to fail.

There are a lot of really dumb statements on this thread from various trolls, but this takes the cake.

I'm no fan of the increase in surveillance, but you can make the argument that the string of terrorist attacks (first WTC, African embassies, USS Cole, 9/11) stopping

Here's a brief listing on attacks on US embassies and consulates since they supposedly "stopped":

Kabul, Afghanistan -- Nov. 27, 2008

Saana, Yemen -- September 2008

Casablanca, Morocco -- Apr. 16, 2007

Athens, Greece -- Jan. 12, 2007

Damascus, Syria -- Sep. 11, 2006

Karachi, Pakistan -- Mar. 2006

Tunis, Tunisia -- Oct. 1, 2003

Monrovia, Liberia -- Jul. 21, 2003

Karachi, Pakistan -- Jun. 14, 2002

Lima, Peru -- Mar. 21, 2002

"Secretary of State Rice assured me there was no one who foresaw planes being used as weapons before 9/11 except the FBI and the Pentagon in their training manuals."

And Tom Clancy. Don't forget Tom Clancy. You can't tell me that the guys in the Bush administration have never read Debt of Honor.

You also can't tell me that none of them saw the 1996 Kurt Russell / Steven Seagal / Halle Berry action movie "Executive Decision", which involved a plot by Islamic terrorists to crash a bomb-packed jetliner into DC.

So no one could have foreseen this except the FBI and the Pentagon in their training manuals along with the ten million plus people who saw "Executive Decision" in theatres or at home via cable or video.

"Secretary of State Rice assured me there was no one who foresaw planes being used as weapons before 9/11 except the FBI and the Pentagon in their training manuals."

Also, um, shouldn't the fact that the FBI and the Pentagon foresaw it be kind of enough?

So no one could have foreseen this except the FBI and the Pentagon in their training manuals along with the ten million plus people who saw "Executive Decision" in theatres or at home via cable or video.

Don't forget Chris Carter and Vince Gilligan, who used a remote-controlled airliner attack on the World Trade Center in the pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen," their failed "X-Files" spinoff.

But, yes, other than the FBI, the Pentagon, the viewers of "Executive Decision," and "X-Files" fans, no one could possibly have imagined that an airliner would be used as a weapon against a skyscraper.

And third, this notion that evaluating Bush's legacy on counter-terrorism should start on Sept. 12, 2001, is just odd.

This reminds me of the line in Four Weddings and a Funeral, where he says that his parents met, kind of liked the look of each other and lived happily ever after....apart from the divorce and all that....

I do not believe Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks. Much was written about this in the blogosphere after he committed suicide, but it basically boils down to the fact that the feds have zero forensic evidence against him. Their case was all circumstance and smear.

Sorry Allan.

The first attack on the WTCs was bigger. It just happened to fail.

There are a lot of really dumb statements on this thread from various trolls, but this takes the cake.

This is even dumber in the "paranoid delusional does not correspond to reality" fashion:

Not sure why that attack gets the "no harm/no foul" treatment.

Unless I'm mis-remembering the conspirators being found, tried, convicted and sent to prison.

Custer hasn't lost a single man since the Little Big Horn.

Unless I'm mis-remembering the conspirators being found, tried, convicted and sent to prison.

Yes, but Clinton singularly failed to invade somewhere in response. Of course, given that the attack was carried out by Egyptians, Saudis and Pakistanis living in New Jersey, I'm not sure where exactly Clinton should have invaded (except New Jersey -- they had it coming) but I think we can all agree that his actively hunting down and capturing the perpetrators coupled with his failure to invade somewhere, anywhere, demonstrates conclusively that liberals just aren't serious about stopping terrorism.....especially when you compare it with the robust conservative approach of letting the perpetrators run free years afterwards.

Facts is facts and we slaughtered tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of Iraqis because war criminals like Bush were allowed to pretend that 9/11 was a regular occurrence. Only a total fucking moron thinks that Bush matching Clinton's record of only one major attack on American soil (OKC for Clinton - NYC/DC for Bush) in eight years is something that demonstrates his competence.

But I guess the fact that Bush has killed more soldiers than bin Laden killed civilians is okay if you are the kind of monster who cheers on terror. After all, the Iraqis have been terrorized as a result of Bush's unprovoked assault on its citizens. Right Goon? Do the cries of Iraqi children dying from terrorist bombs in Baghdad lull you to sleep at night?

What's the difference between a terrorist chopping off the head of his victim and a bomber pilot dropping ordinance on a woman and child? Government subsidized health care. Oh, and courage. After all, the head-chopper is man enough to face his victims and lives with the knowledge of how many there were. Bomber pilots gleefully cheer on death without ever having to know just how many victims are represented by the medals on their cowardly chests.

"Add me to the group that thinks "homeland" is creepy. Sounds very Sovietlike."

I've been saying this for years! Not only that it's also very Nazi Germany like. Fatherland anyone? This administration has had its head so far up its coldwar ass it had no idea what it actually set out to accomplish. Congrats Bush, you were 30-40 years too late to be hero.

Seems the "Homeland" is at a great risk from the "Home" Mortgage meltdown, financial industy collapse, auto industry collapse and the two wars brought about by the 911 attacks, which have bankrupted us, and all this since September 11, 2001. What is the definition of Homeland Security? No more Bombers into buildings, guided by dark skinned foreigners? Mission Accomplished!

Connect the dots, people. In a new world of post-industrial technology and virtual reality, what used to be easily identified as an attack on physical bodies and property is replaced by the inner corruption of moral, social and spiritual destruction. We may be winning the war of military might, but losing our souls.

Only by community cooperation will we overcome what is happening to us and the world.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

Sarah, is that Sarah Palin making these ridiculous posts above.

First of all Sarah, here's a clue, if you are scared of someone, why piss them off or provoke them?

If you are so scared of the terrorists, don't you think it would be bold coming on their turf? How about your favorite leader telling them to, "Bring it on."

Why don't your controllers/handlers teach you how to avoid confrontations and/or fights you can't win? People like you start s***, but want others to fight your battles.

You sound like the type of chick that start arguments, but when it comes to a fight, you want your big sister or friends to do the fighting for you.

Therefore, you are a troublemaker. I'm sure these words, you have heard before, like from your family?

It is all about the bankers. Our Masters! Until someone wants to stand up to them, and probably be dead, we don't have a chance.

"Facts is facts, and the fact is, we've had no more 9/11's since 9/11."

ROFL.... Facts is facts, and the fact is, we had no 9/11s until 9/11. See how dumb this logical fallacy of yours is? If you really want to have a discussion, I'd suggest you turn your brain on first.

"I get the sense that liberals really dont understand the threat we face"

ROFL.... I suppose it's possible that we do not. However, it is a dead certainty that you do not.

"the terrorists hate you for your behavior and beliefs"

Well, no, actually, it's not nearly so simple. Out here in the real world, it just isn't that black-and-white. You should join us here someday.

"being 'nice' or 'trying to understand them' will not work."

Well, gee, isn't it great then that nobody, anywhere, is proposing that? Nice little strawman of yours. Care to deal with what we actually *are* saying or do you just want to keep making shit up?

"it doesnt matter if they are not a nation/state"

Why, yes, actually it does, because the tactics you employ against one are not even remotely the tactics you would employ against the other, which is why Bush has failed so miserably.

"they are believers in a religion, that religion is islam, and religion trumps nationality to them"

ROFL... Who is this "they" of which you speak? Do you really not understand that there is no single set of people, no single set of issues, no single set of tactics?

"(tough for liberals to understand since they do not believe in either)."

ROFL.... Thanks for confirming that you're a moron.

"our strong military wont matter when there are liberals ready to submit without a fight, so as to not hurt anyone's 'feeeelings'."

Q.E.D. This was hilarious shit. I can't wait to see what kind of mindless drivel you'll come up with next.

"I'm no fan of the increase in surveillance, but you can make the argument that the string of terrorist attacks (first WTC, African embassies, USS Cole, 9/11) stopping and the increase in surveillance are related."

A: they didn't stop. B: you can't make that argument without being guilty of the logical fallacy, post hoc; ergo, propter hoc.

To date, I'm not aware of even one actual documented bit of evidence that ties increased surveillance to the stopping of *any* attack or planned attack. The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed this but has never seen fit to back up their claims.

"aggressively pursuing intelligence at home and abroad is an essential anti-terrorist preventative measure."

Not quite. Intelligently pursuing intelligence at home and abroad is an essential preventive measure. That's been just one of the problems the Bush administration has had: they confuse "toughness" with "effectiveness."

"In fact, the terrorists proclaimed it THE battleground, the place where they were going to defeat us."

ROFL... And which "terrorists" would those be?

"And they lost."

Really? Which of them "lost?"

"Instead of a caliphate they are being hunted down by their own Sunni brothers."

Uh-huh... So, let's see ... the people you're talking about are al Qaida in Iraq, a group that wasn't even there before we attacked and that never amounted to much. We paid the Sunni tribal leaders and members to take them out and they did, quite successfully. So what's going to happen when we stop paying them?

"So now they go back to Afghanipakistan and regroup."

Which is right where they always have been. So tell me, why did we attack Iraq again?

So, after the August briefing warning of the attack, after Clinton administration officials running around with their hair on fire about bin Laden, after all of that, we have to accept that Bush "kept us safe" *after* 9/11?

Talk about the mother of all mulligans...