[Chena]

There was no Patriot Act from 1993-2001 and we didn't get hit then, either (OKC being a debatable exception). We don't have enough information to know if we haven't gotten hit because of the Patriot Act, etc. or because it's AQ's m.o. to wait years between attacks if it suits them. And based on the President's performance in today's presser, I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The terrorist haven't been able to successfully hit us again, but they have tried.

[Allegra]

The terrorist haven't been able to successfully hit us again, but they have tried.

It's likely they haven't hit us again because they have been engaged elsewhere.

[nathanbedford]

The terrorists have no need to hit us in the homeland just yet - we are doing the job for them in Iraq, bleeding our troops emptying our treasury, offending our allies, and demonstrating to all Islam that we cannot effectively cope with asymetrical opposition to occupation. The net result: we become daily less able to deter Iran from getting the bomb and also less able to invade for military and diplomatic reasons.

The Iranians and the Al Quaida had only to wait until the war broke us on the rocks of domestic politics. That happened yesterday. The author is right, the decision to get out of Iraq has already been made. Rumsfeld is only the down payment. The rest will be cosmetics.

After the withdrawal, expect an attack on the homeland because the terrorists must do that to advance jihad once we have stopped hitting ourselves with a hammer in Iraq. The question is, will it be a nuke? If not, the terrorists will have made a fatal error and changed the equation by waking up America.