not 'if', but 'when'

was for several years prior to 9/11/01 a catch-phrase used by those in the counter-terrorism and emergency preparedness business. Not surprisingly, the 9/11 Commission's report (which can be found online here) itself states "The 9-11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise." Indeed. And they didn't. In fact it is now *hopefully* clear to all that warning bells were ringing at several Federal Agencies for the year preceding the attacks of September 11th, leading to scores of interagency memorandums detailing the impending crisis looming over America; like Coleen Rowley's now infamous memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller, the August 6th PDB, and more. President Bush stated very directly "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." This is a curious statement, inasmuch as Mr. Bush had ample opportunity to know of precisely this scenario, in fact, this scenario has always been the one most likely to occur, yet he and his staff did very little... so little it can almost be characterized as nothing. And he can't say that the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief didn't cover this possiblility.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. - excerpt from August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"

By virtue of his own words he has admitted that he either (1)doesn't read the information that his own cabinet provides him, or a much less likely possibility that (2)he read them and deemed their contents not significant enough to warrant action, or lastly (and I think most likely), that (3)he didn't read the information but was briefed on it, deemed it not worthy of further action, buried his head back in the sand and continued enjoying his vacation. I don't really know what to make of the posturing by the GOP that they're more suited to handle the threat of terrorism to America than Democrats. History hasn't proven this true... which may explain the neverending impetus to revise the history shortly after Bush's crew creates it. For this administration black is white, good is bad, and up is down.... have they managed to confuse you yet? Americans are not safer by virtue of their leaders telling them so. We still remain precariously close to another 9/11-style attack. The contention of the Bush administration is that an American presence in the Middle East will help transform the now-more-than-ever hostile region into a burgeoning democracy with a domino effect that will change the world. Of course absent a direct threat to the safety of Americans in particular, that rationale doesn't allow for our military to travel halfway across the globe to fight a paper-thin Iraqi Army with a fraction of the capabilities it retained after it was utterly destroyed during Gulf War I. So the justification used pre-invasion was WMDs. When pressed on how the WMDs were a threat to Americans, it became that Saddam could give them to terrorists. When that didn't pan out the target was again moved and it became about 'liberation'. All of this lending credence to the theory that if you throw enough bad reasons out there, you won't need a good one, because the American public will do the rest of your work for you. What America needs is a President who sets real priorities for our Country; one that understands the threat from Al Qaeda and it's imminence, and is committed to fighting that threat. We need a President who favors science over empty rhetoric. We don't need a President who tries to gain political capital with every speech on terrorism. We don't need a President who caters to the fears of Americans to build a strawman argument that, while you're scared right now, Bush will make you 'less scared'... just more of the up-is-downism. George W. Bush's campaign will spend the remainder of this Summer and Fall attempting to convince the American public that only he can keep you safe from terrorism; that without him (and the approach he is taking to fight terrorism) terrorists may take away your freedoms. To this I'd like to ask Mr. Bush: "When you think of terrorists, do you actually think about them taking over our Country? Do you think about them taking up residence in the White House? Do you think there is a possibility that they'll actually win, and we will lose our freedoms? Do you really believe the things that come out of your own mouth?" The biggest threat to our freedoms are the policies of the Bush administration, crafted in reactive fashion for the purpose of getting "out in front" on an issue they shunned for years and it bit them in the ass. I have never feared that a terrorist will take away my freedom. To suggest that one would (or even could) is silliness. I've come to realize that not only are Republicans not suited to fight terrorism, they don't seem like they're much for running a country either. I think it's time for a wiser, more measured decision-maker to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Hopefully enough Americans believe similarly and, starting next January, we can begin the long process of correcting George Bush's litany of mistakes.