You're comparing oranges to apples Kevin. Problems in the US from 2000-2008 are reals and someone was in charge. No attack done in US soil since 9/11 doesn't prove that the actions taken are 100% responsible for this. Maybe no serious and real plan were analysed or they require more time to take place. The actions taken may even be counter-productive since the US may have made more ennemies who will take actions later on. You're in the speculations gray zone here.


Rubbish. You know as well as I do that even if you double or triple the amount of police officers on patrol, and crime drops, one cannot prove with 100% certainty that the increase in officers led to the reduction in crime. (But take away the cops and see what happens)

There is substantial evidence that what Bush put into place might have foiled the attack on the US Bank Tower (formerly the Library tower).

These last few days have brought me to my senses - that Bush, while flawed, wasn't nearly as bad as I thought.

Others can moan and complain all they want about our "harsh" tactics. Many of you folks are surely good people (well, most at least), but incredibly naive. To have peace and security in our country, occasional demostrations of strength are necessary when we have enemies who want to see American blood flow in the streets.

I'm reminded of that old line...."I don't care if they hate us, so long as they are afraid of us". And I'll add that the ones who don't fear us, the ones who are actively planning to bring more carnage - we have to seek them out and terminate them. That's the only way we'll be safe from terrorism.