If they can't pull of a spectacular attack in Iraq, with all the weapons, explosives, and jihadi not-so-smart-bombs running around, what chance do they have of doing it here?

Somewhere between slim and nil.

Is that pic of u on the right side of ur site in a suit hehe? u look cute if it is btw...

"Of course, that's something VP readers have know for quite some time. "

Stephen, I just read the links you provided, and I don't see anywhere in them where you take Friedman's position that the terrorists have welcomed our fight and that is why they have not hit us again.

Frankly, I am surprised you think that, if you do.

When they hit us again - they will go for 'soft' targets and THEN everyone will say they attacked us because of the War in Iraq. Which makes NO SENSE if you look back in history to 1979 and all the acts of terror against Americans. They will continue to try and may succeed against us - but the BIG ONE is already lost for them. Millions of Arabs have seen VOTING, free and fair - and THAT GENIE ain't going back in the bottle anytime soon.,

Friedman is one of the more readable Times collumnists, but he is also realiably wrong. See his point that the enemy welcomed this fight on their territory. I'm sure you never said this (your point is that Bush going there is what has kept us safe, and I agree), it's ridculous on its face. The enemy over played their hand, and got clobbered. Friedman's take is just a new way of introducing the spin, it's not credible enought to call it an argument, that going to Iraq took our eye off what we really should be doing to secure the country. Nice try Tommy.

Bush understoond from the outset that the best defense is a great offence. As a result of this strategery, we are not now more at risk due to some hail mary plan, we are instead safer than at any point since 9/11. That said, there is still a daily threat of attack. It is greatly reduced, however, because even nutjob jihadi's won't be as willing to blow themselves up for the Washington Generals of the bad guy world.

Just wanted to point this out:

Despite all the code reds and code oranges we've been subjected to by the Department of Homeland Security

There hasn't been a Red Threat Advisory since the system was established, as far as I can remember.

I had a point to make but Pursuit made most of it for me. Friedman is able to provide an occasional flash of brilliance, which are especially noticeable among his dull collegues at the NYT, but he is quite capable of being quite wrong.

So what is the implication here? Do we turn East towards Iran... or South to Saudi Arabia? Decisions, decisions.

Osma wanted a confrontation. He believed the US was weak and wouldn't fight after taking casualities. He also believed the Muslim world would rise up and oppose the great Satan in any conflict.

He was confronted with a US president with an iron spine and a big bang strategy to destroy terror supporting states and introduce representative government.

Will we be struck again? Maybe. The likely response if Bush is still in the White House, still more aggressive confrontation.

Here’s what Friedman originally wrote –

"...the jihadis thought they were holding the nut pair in a game of half-limit 7 stud hold’em, and were trying to lure the US into seeing their big bet, but now they think Bush drew to the inside flush and so they have to go totally in to have any hope of winning the round..."

- but this time the editors caught him.

I ain't no jihadi, but do enjoy holding my nut pair, Michaelt.

In all seriousness, I think W's strategy is the single reason they haven't been able to hit us here again. Before the Bush Doctrine came into effect, they had literally years to sit around and plan and plot, with impunity (and in some cases, state support). Now, they know that somebody will always be looking for them. And there's a whole new generation of American kids playing "Splinter Cell" right now who will be responsible for eliminating the future jihadis.

Friedman is a putz.

I've just finished his latest book and having fallen on his face re the Middle East, he's moved on to a new hobby horse; Asia and off-shoring as the new paradigm in geo-political strategy — of course, as usual, we're doomed to failure should we not heed his advice.

"It's a Flat World, After All" is worth a look, if for nothing else, to note how far behind the market curve it is.

Rob - my editors didn't even catch "nut pair." I gotta start paying them.

I suppose terrorists would be happy with any spectacular or symbolic attack on the US, no matter when it occurs, but I have to think that the optimal time for it, in order to have maximum psychological effect, has passed.

I think that an attack now would make those of us who still are thinking about these things even more determined, and it would remind those who have forgotten 9-11 what we still are up against.

It may get people talking less about the successes overseas, but it wouldn't stop them, and it would bring on another "rally 'round the flag" effect.

And it's not like they are capable of carrying out a large attack whenever they want to, or they would have already.

And if it takes them a year or two to put the plan together, it puts defense back on the front burner for the 2008 election.

As in all things, follow the money. Where's it coming from now that Saddam isn't playing banker anymore? Bush closed down terrorist front organizations in the U.S. and I believe Tony Blair did the same in the U.K.

Arafat appropriated the PA treasury and either took it with him or his widow has it. Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Lebanon have seen the light and other ME countries are probably on the verge of following them.

Things may not be as rosy in the terrorist camps as the MSM would like us to believe.

I'm afraid an attack might be as simple as simultaneous multiple assaults by teams of 3-4 men on hald a dozen high schools in randomly chosen heartland areas (just cover all the exits of some small 200-300 person high school and start shooting every kid they see). The message being "you can’t even protect what’s in your children in the center of your country, how do you think you can possibly win on the frontlines?" I can’t even begin to think about the effect something like that would have on the country.

It's amazing how Friedman is jumping on the bandwagon that Bush's strategy has been right all along.

When things looked less rosy in Iraq, Friedman was always stressing the negative. He sure wasn't reminding people that this strategy was working in preventing another terror attack at home. Then I would have been impressed by him.

As it is, Friedman is a writer who tries to straddle the fence and play it both ways.