The sum of your message.

T. B. - “Irrelevant, and a deliberate (I assume) misrepresentation of the concept.”

50,000 violent deaths per year are irrelevant. Misrepresent the concept of violent death. Hmmm??!!

If 50,000 don't count, how do 3,000 count? If you aren't concerned for the first, why the latter?

The rest was comment. No rebuttal.

Now, WTC was inexcusable and tragic. (And if the FBI and CIA and NSA Advisor did something besides process memos, it wouldn't have happened. Maybe if those who are charged with "the security of America" - - - !!!) So was the Cole, but a bit more understandable. It's a military target, and why was it there? The Embassy's in Kenya and Tanzania are US government, and a bit understandable.

None of them are excusable. Not a single one. And they are tragedies.

Now, about the security of America.

Do you think the government will collapse? Do you think enemy troops are going to march through the street?

So is that security threatened?

Regarding the Bill of Rights. The attack is here, now and by the Bush Administration. Under this administration citizens just like you and me could be detained at the whim of some Ruler, forever, with no charges. With no legal representation, but that doesn't matter. You wouldn't even be hauled before a court. What are you waiting to see? ("There is none so blind", etc.)

I think the security of the country is dependent upon a strong economy, one that can pay it's bills, and isn't spending and borrowing and spending and borrowing some more. But that's just rash ol' liberal me. Fiscal responsibility, and all that.

The "security of the country" is just fine. Except for trashing the Bill of Rights, the principle of one person - one vote (counted vote, that is), and ruining the economy. Those we have to worry about.

And so far you haven't responded, except to say that 50,000 violent deaths per year, that is SINCE 9-11, are irrelevant.

Poor choice of words.

Arf