What you could do is tell me whose fault it will be when a nuclear cargo comes through the port of LA with a dirty bomb. Will that be Clinton’s fault or everybody’s fault for not taking the threat seriously enough?

Wait. What?

Is there a point in there?

And that ladies and gentlemen encapsulates the current progressive mindset rather well.

You were doing so well up to there. Then you went off the rails:

“celebrityhood…”

Celebrityhood? Besides not being a word, you can’t be a celebrity if nobody knows your name, the fact that you’re being held, and you never get to speak to an outsider.

“an unquestioning ear from major newspapers and television,…

Riiigt. Gitmo is just crawling with reporters.

“and the ACLU petitioning the Supreme Court for your imminent release”

Baloney. Link!

I do wait for Republican candidates to start showcasing our aforementioned ‘background successes’ as the election grows nearer.

I see arguments on here brazenly saying that 9/11 was somehow Clinton’s fault. I see arguments on here saying that the Democrats don’t have a “plan” for the war on terror, which is disputed by plans for all of the aforementioned. I see people arguing that we are safer since 9/11 because there have been no attacks “on U.S. soil” yet we’ve lost 2,700 service men since 2003. Weren’t they Americans?

The problem for me isn’t the policy differences. Those will be part of the world forever. The problem is the dishonesty of the current Republican leadership and their enablers.

Frankly, the fact that only 14% of respondents feel more secure is a win for Republicans. It means that they’ve succeeded in making the country quiver in their collective boots about threats that are probably as likely to happen to them as a shark attack — unless they are soldiers.

Then perhaps you can explain how the Progressive ideal, “attack America and you will be captured, get clean clothes, a Koran, three healthy meals a day, exercise, celebrityhood, an unquestioning ear from major newspapers and television, and the ACLU petitioning the Supreme Court for your imminent release” will help forfend terrorism.

Were Americans “safer” after Islamic terrorists tried to blow up the WTC the first time in 1993?

Were Americans “safer” during the 1950′s with the threat of Russian nukes, than they were in the 1940′s?

Were Americans “safer” after we discovered missiles in Cuba that were pointed at us?

More also say the threat of terrorism has grown since 9/11 than said so a year ago. Forty-one percent say the threat has increased since the attacks

This is directly related to Bush and the Republicans and is not good. Yet, it isn’t a majority, so it isn’t a slam dunk for Democrats which is why they aren’t using itconstantly.

The American Public has a Liberal bias.

Reality has a Liberal bias.

Dugger hasn’t been following the polls lately, has he?

But when Bush talked about “smoking him out of his hole” and attacking any nation that harbors terrorists, by not attacking Pakistan he is telling our enemies that his words are not to be taken seriously. He is telling rogue regimes that the US doesn’t follow through.

And whether OBL ever attacks us again, that makes us less safe.

Of course, the administrations “we could care less” attitude about catching the person who perpetrated the biggest crime in American history is more than a little disturbing. That emboldens terrorists the world over- attack America and you won’t get punished.

Invading Pakistan (which I’ll agree wouldn’t be a great move) because Osama Bin Laden is living there: “ridiculous”

Invading Iran, which is not attacking us or its neighbors, absolutely necessary right now!

And these are the people who are “serious” about the War on Terror why again?

Would the Constitution do?

Democratic theme: “Remember the Bill of Rights!”