I know that there is a built in life line for those who want to discredit Bush, but it is still an interesting counter point to the "Bush hasn't done squat to prevent terrorism claim".

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-120655-9785r.htm

Interesting article, and no doubt it's probably true. I'd believe it. But the area of Bush's terrorism record that is in dispute here are the 8 months leading up to 9/11 and from 9/11/2002 to today. There's no doubt in my mind that his immediate response to the 9/11 attacks was appropriate. But the moment we went into Iraq, the weakness on terrorism returned and allowed al Quaeda to regroup and restrengthen. Part of Bin Laden's propaganda talked of the United States invading an oil rich Muslim nation unprovoked and occupying it. So what did we do instead of going after al Quaeda? Exactly that. All we did by invading Iraq was prove the nutcase right. Thanks to us, Osama has gone from a loony extremist to a freedom-fighting hero in the Muslim world. Part of being tough on terrorism is not playing into the enemy's hands.

As for before 9/11, Condi claims the president and administration were on "battle stations" in response to terror. Yet Bush spent 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation. Battle stations, indeed.

As for before 9/11, Condi claims the president and administration were on "battle stations" in response to terror. Yet Bush spent 42% of his first 8 months in office on vacation. Battle stations, indeed. Well, indeed that is battle stations. I mean he was there for 5 out of 8 months. That's a much better record than when he was with the National Guard.

Seriously though, the big problem here is that it is almost impossible to quantify the number of terror attacks that have been prevented. Unless you catch a guy with a bomb or some other incriminating evidence, are we absolutely sure that we prevented a terror attack? Plus, does changing plans count as averting a terror attack? How many terror attacks are planned and don't get carried out even if no changes to a given target take place? Again we cannot know the numbers. Have changes made by the Bush administration prevented terror attacks on the U.S.? Probably. Heck, if they did it once, it is only reasonable to suspect that they would attempt it again if they felt they had a reasonable chance to succeed. But to quantify that number is simply impossible.

Our default approach to terrorism is that we must prevent all attacks. Every succesful attack is a failure for our western intelligence agencies and police agencies.

That's a little far fetched, don't you think ? How on earth can ANYONE prevent some lunatic from strapping himself in a bombsuit, and blow himself up in the middle of a crowded restaurant in the name of Jihad ?

Or don't you consider that as a terrorist act ?

First he would need a bombsuit, no? I agree with Joa on this one.

Why on earth should you put allowances on terrorism from what you practically can and cannot do? Sounds like you're the one who doesn't find the guy blowing himself a terrorist, because it's not practically possible to stop every single one of them.

The goal is no terror, what so ever. Let's never settle for less.