Even though I know our security forces are probably more effective than they were pre 9/11, I believe it would've resulted no matter who was in power or what policies were instituted. The intelligence folks had major egg on their faces and just their own embarassment would've made them more cognizant of what was going on around them.

But here's where your logic falls apart thinking that we've done a great job of stopping terrorist attacks. I can envision a thousand scenarios where we could've been hit that would've required almost no infrastructure that could've been detected. That leads me to believe that the lack of attacks is deliberate. One major reason for this strategy is one I've suggested often where the terrorist heads believe they have us moving in the right direction for their overall strategy and another attack might result in us taking moron out of the White House and putting someone reasonable in that they can't control like a puppet.

Tell me a single step Bush has taken that hasn't resulted in increased Islamic sympathy for the terrorist causes and a surge in their recruiting. They can anticipate his every move. He's as predictable as a rat in a maze or Pavlov's salivating dog.

We've certainly had successes in knocking out individuals that just so happen to be bad guys and I'm sure we've busted some folks just out of good police and espionage work but to claim our foreign policy over the last few years has prevented horrific attacks within our borders in a gross overstatement in my opinion. It's too simple to carry out if one doesn't complicate things too much.

Art