Help - need terror in the US since 9/11 - need for LTTE

[NewJeffCT]

I'm responding to this bozo's letter, who dares challenge Molly Ivins. I think there was a thread on this on DU last week or over the weekend, but I could not find it?

Better Intelligence; No Attacks

In response to Molly Ivins' Dec. 21 column "Because He's The President?" :

I continue to be flabbergasted at the extent liberals are trying to undermine the war on terror. Ms. Ivins believes that the president shouldn't use wiretaps to keep tabs on domestic terrorism plots. Our government has been using wiretaps for many years when it comes to combating crime. It is sad that there are Americans like Ms. Ivins who apparently have forgotten the events of 9/11 and must believe that this country isn't still in harm's way.

Sept. 11 opened our country's eyes to the idea that, despite having oceans separating us from most other nations, an attack on this country can be easily executed. The reason this country has not been attacked since 9/11 is the better use and means of getting intelligence. However, it would be futile to try and explain that to Ms. Ivins and her fellow far-left liberals, because only mainstream Americans would understand that logic.

I thank the president for doing his job and protecting not only me, but Ms. Ivins and the rest of the American people.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-lets1223.artdec23,0,2066392.story?coll=hc-headlines-letters

[rfranklin]

1. Just answer with the many polls showing the majority of Americans...

do not believe that Bush is making us safer and feel he is doing a poor job. And point out that this "true believer" is the one out of step with "real Americans."

[FloridaPat]

2. Remember the DC snipers? They had Washington in a panic

right before the 2002 election. They had the rest of the country in a half-panic. What would it take to shut down this country? Just a couple of snipers and bombers. But the bin Ladin group doesn't do this. To me, the fact that there has been no more "foreign terrorists" is proof the government is behind 9-11. Because after 9-11, bin Ladin attacked overseas only when * numbers were down. We are extremely vulnerable, no matter what * does. And from what I've seen, they've done nothing to fight terrorism at home. Lots of arrests. Lots of torture. No charges. No trials. They've sabotaged trials in Germany against al Qaeda. They've done what al Qaeda demands (get out of Saudi Arabia and get rid of Sadam). But they have tons of Americans against repubs and war on terrorist lists, tons of Americans jailed because they make comments about how they would like to kill *, and now tons of Americans spied on. Whose side is our government on? It does not seem to be our side.

[NewJeffCT]

5. I remember them well

I always bring them up when somebody mentions it.

[mntleo2]

3. Neither Was Clinrton's Administration

...attacked ~ without illegal wiretapping. What I mean about this is, the WTC was also bombed but Clinton did not resort to such shenanigans as Bush has resorted to doing (also sans the Pariot Act). Considering the results, was Clinton any less able to protect the American people without those 'tools'?

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[Balbus]

4. A couple of months ago, around the end of October,

the 31st I think, me and a friend of mine were walking through this house with a bunch of other people and people kept jumping out the doors, with scary masks and make-up no less, and screaming at us - terrorized the hell out of me!!!

On a serious note, probably the anthrax letters was the biggest terrorist event.

[gratuitous]

6. In addition to the anthrax killers

You might also mention the sad case of Portland OR attorney Brandon Mayfield. Right after the train bombings in Madrid, somewhere along the line someone in Spain thought Mayfield's fingerprint was on one of the bags that blew up.

Mayfield was a suspicious character to our faultless administration because he had made an adult conversion to Islam, but had never had any previous trouble with the law. Nevertheless, he was arrested, his deep complicity in the Madrid bombings was splashed all over the front page of the Oregonian and every television station in town for weeks. Then . . . oopsie, it turns out someone had made a teensy-weensy mistake. The print didn't match at all, and Mayfield hadn't been to Spain. He was innocent.

Now, where does Mayfield, a small businessman, go to retrieve his permanently damaged reputation and recover his livelihood? He hadn't done anything wrong, and allegedly had nothing to worry about. How will bozo letter-writer reimburse Mayfield?