The lead of a Christian Science Monitor story goes like this: "In the five years since the 9/11 attacks, President Bush has made good on promises to protect the nation from terrorism. But this success has come at a price."

What I find interesting about this is the assumption that the Prez has "made good on promises to protect the nation from terrorism." This does not seem borne out by the evidence as I far as I know. The number of publicized foiled attacks and/or legal actions against terrorist suspects in the US is remarkably small over these five years. Only one case that I can recall offhand has progressed through the courts. If you are under the impression that there are many more prosecutions or intercepted plots, join the club. Perhaps it could be said that there have been plots interrupted that have not been publicized. Perhaps. However, this administration has no hesitation or shame about tooting their own horn. Hell, they like claiming other countries' achievements in this area. If there were more, I think the specifics would be repeated endlessly, notchs on the admin's CV.

There have been some very publicized busts/arrests in the US but these have almost all turned out to be less of a threat to the nation than, say, an angry, violent teenager with access to firearms.

Just because there have been no more attacks is not a proof of the effectiveness of the Prez's efforts. Are there still people committed to striking at the US with large-scale acts of destruction? Yes, I'd conceed there are such people. However, the why of the absence of revealed or successful strikes remains unclear to me.

I don't like people pissing on my head and telling me it's raining. And if there is one thing the Prez likes, it's a pissing contest. I suspect Tony Blair knows a little about this.