MURCHISON: Homicidal maniacs at large

There are so many things wrong with this article it's hard to know where to begin. To start with, torture (including waterboarding) produces bad and unusable intelligence; people say whatever they think will make the torture stop. Secondly, the Mumbai attack comes after seven years of your War on Terror; thus whatever tactics you're using are clearly not winning. Thirdly, the 9/11 attacks were intended to provoke the USA into getting embroiled in a land war in Asia, proverbially one of the great blunders; they don't need to attack the USA any more because you are sending your people overseas to kill and be killed at the terrorists' convenience. Fourthly, you seem to think the ACLU object to warranted spying on foreign enemies, whereas in fact they object to warrantless spying on the population at large. Please be less wrong in future.

The ACLU objected to warrantless surveillance on terrorists. It was done with criteria in place. Terrorists are not US citizens. They are here illegally with false passports and visas and identities. I would leave the waterboarding validity up to the experts to evaluate. Statements are made that it doesn't give true information, but no evidence, only mantra. Attacks around the world only point to the fact the Islam threat is not just directed at the US or Bush. The 9/11 attacks were just another in a series. Your use of the phrase "you are sending your people overseas" shows that you are not from this country, perhaps you are even an embedded member of a cell here.

SAWells: What does less wrong mean? If you disagree, thats fine, but the article is opinion, not fact. There is no less or more wrong. After reviewing Obama's choices for his staff and cabinet, it is clear that he is moving toward the Clintonisque multilateralist policies of the 90's. Obama is uncomfortable with the military and will not use them as a unilateral tool for foreign policy, Clinton never did even when there was a reason to (WTC, Khobar Towers, Embassies and USS Cole bombings). Clinton did however use U.S. force in international interests (Kosovo). Therefore Obama's change in foreign policy looks like a shift away from terrorism toward international humanitarian interests (human rights, genocide, global warming). He will keep Gates on long enough to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq and then find someone that is suitable for whatever the HillBills determine his foreign policy to be. Since he did appoint Rice, an anti-genocidist, one would think that our next big involvement would be an international mission in Africa. The one thing we should really ask ourselves in our current economic, political and military situation would be what really are our U.S. national interests on the African continent?

"But surely much of the credit for our thus-far-clean record of public safety is owing to stringent federal measures to catch or head off terrorists" Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job. Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, sweetie. Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers. Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock. Homer: I see. Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you? Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

Uh, dittoman? At the point when you worry that anonymous internet commenters might be members of embedded terrorist cells in your country... you really, really need to lighten up. Paranoia is bad for you.

Incredible that people like this writer are still out there. 1. The Bush use of torture is illegal and unAmerican. You approve of it. 2. The Bush use of warrantless spying on AMERICANS: Not terrorists, not foreigners, AMERICANS is prohibited by the 4th Amendment of our Constitution. No matter what John Yoo, David Addington, Gonzo Gonzalez, "Dick" Cheney or any other Bush figure wants to claim as a matter of fact or a matter of law. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 3. The reason we've not been attacked is because....we have not been attacked. Based on worldwide terror atacks and the increased strength of our enemies, it is clear that the GWOT, the illegal occupation of Iraq, and the use of extradition, rendering, and torture have made us MORE likely to be attacked, but our enemies have not chosen to do so. Idiot.

Such inane posters on here, I swear! Can you Bush-haters out there find at least ONE thing to complement him about? Are you still mad about 2000? Sometimes I just don't get your reasoning. First of all, GWB is NOT spying on Americans, the Patriot Act has very stringent rules on what can be listened in on. If they are spying on someone, you can rest assured there's a damn good reason for it! Secondly, waterboarding is not exactly defined as torture, and it's effectiveness cannot be cavalierly dismissed. And I am sick and tired of the argument that "We are supposed to be above the terrorists, to do this brings us down to their level". Hogwash!! There is a damn good reason we have not been attacked, and that is because we've had a President with cojones, a President who could give a crap how he was perceived by the daily polls, or in Paris or Berlin, a President who only cared about defending the Constitution, and the country. I only hope Obama is up to the same task.

"There is a damn good reason we have not been attacked, and that is because we've had a President with cojones" Scroll down a few messages and note the illustration of your logical fallacy.

We were first attacked in 1993, the WTC bombings. We were attacked again in 2001. What do you attribute to the 8.5 year absence of attacks on our soil? The Clinton administration? You see the fact that we haven't been attacked proves nothing.

The rabid left-wing, Bush-hating imbeciles are as demented as the terrorists. Their mental disorder leads them to think that terrorism has been trumped up by the Bush administration for some motive that is bereft of logic. You can bet that Obama is getting an earful in the briefings that he is receiving about the true state of affairs, and if he is as bright as his supporters claim, will want to think twice about some of his earlier pronouncements and positions.

"We were first attacked in 1993, the WTC bombings. We were attacked again in 2001. What do you attribute to the 8.5 year absence of attacks on our soil? The Clinton administration? You see the fact that we haven't been attacked proves nothing." You conveniently forgot about the U.S. Embassy attacks, along with the USS Cole attack, along with the utter lack of response by Bill Clinton. You lefties just refuse to acknowledge any positive accomplishments by GWB. What is up with that? At least I'll be magnanimous to compliment Obama, if and when he does something positive. And believe it or not, I hope he does.

To b_smark, "Scroll down a few messages and note the illustration of your logical fallacy." Exactly what is the fallacy of my logic? I have a logical scenario for you. For years now, the left, and I assume, you, have been decrying the fact that "the whole world hates us with that cowboy Bush as President", and that "He's breeding more terrorism by his cowboy actions". Now logically, would this not cause MORE terrorist attacks on us? After all, if the whole world hates us, and terrorists are breeding out of control, would that not increase at least the likelihood? No. The simple, logical reason we haven't been attacked, is because we have a President who took the fight to them, and he deserves a hell of a lot of credit for that. More than you're willing to acknowledge or understand.

Most of us know that the root cause of most evil and poverty in the world is the result of authoritarian governments, government corruption and a lack of education. I don't see any of you calling for the invasion of the dictatorships in the middle east, North Korea or Mexico. Barring our ability to change the life circumstances of the uneducated poor that end up as fodder for terrorist leaders wanting to destabilize western culture, killing them expeditiously seems like a good idea. The idea of "leave them alone and they won't hurt us" is a little too pacifist for me, and millions of others.

roush6: It is not a matter of convenience. The author states "It seems to have escaped general notice in recent years that the United States hasn't been subjected to a single terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001, for which there are likely various reasons including the lack of a substantial radicalized DOMESTIC community into which terrorists can blend." Please note the term DOMESTIC and that the US has been attacked on foreign soil since 2001. The author goes on to state "We're not Baghdad. We're not even Mumbai or Jakarta. We're Dallas and Chicago and Casper, Wyo." The author is certainly discussing domestic terrorism. Note the author states that "You can't pull the stuff in places like this that you pull abroad." The author is clearly discussing domestic terrorism.

Perhaps the writer forgets the attacks in London and Spain. Would he characterize these cities as being materially different from American cities or have we just been lucky so far?