I assume that there will be terrorist attacks, and that they will happen prior to the November election (or not), and they will involve bombs and loss of life. I fail to see how anyone except Michael Moore could blame George W for missing the run-up to 9/11. It was a brilliantly conceived, diabolical plot -- only a great deal of luck could have broken into it. I don't believe al-Qaeda will be as lucky or imaginative again -- they are obviously going back to car and truck bombs and suicide bombers with backpack bombs. I only blame the Bush administration for getting stupidly involved in Iraq. I lived in London in the 1970's when the IRA were bombing regularly. We simply assumed that they were going to happen, and that some people were going to get blown up into little pieces. That is the price you pay for being in an open society.

What I object to is the panic-mongering. It is a combination of the fear-driven Bush administration (as eloquently set out by a number of contributors above), and the desperate desire of "officials" to cover their asses in case something goes wrong.

I also object to the refusal of the Bush administration to take the real threats seriously, among which the most serious by far is nuclear proliferation. They have never believed in strengthening the global disarmament regime, and are now proposing to create a new generation of nuclear weapons, than which nothing is STUPIDER.

yours,

Peter