The U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) announced this week that the number of worldwide terrorist attacks that occurred in 2004 was 3,192. This number is almost five times higher than the figure of 651 “significant” attacks that NCTC released on April 27 of this year, after the administration received widespread criticism for attempting to hide a major increase in terrorist incidents by dropping the data from the State Department’s 2004 report on global terrorism. The large discrepancy between the April and July figures occurred, according to NCTC officials, because the new number includes “domestic” attacks, in which the victims and perpetrators are of the same nationality, as well as “international” incidents of terrorism. NCTC has not provided comparable data from 2003 or earlier for the sum of domestic and international terrorism, so comparisons between 2004 and previous years can be made only by utilizing other data sets. As a result, most news reports of the announcement have focused on the change in the administration’s definition of terrorism rather than on whether the rate of terrorism is increasing or not.
After the initial number was leaked to the press on April 16 (and before it was officially released nine days later), BTC News prepared a graph displaying data on international terrorism from the last ten years of the State Department’s annual report (which, until this year, was entitled ‘Patterns of Global Terrorism’). As the graph shows, the preliminary 2004 figure was itself about three times higher than the previous year’s figure of 208 terrorist attacks (of which only 175 were classified as “significant”). The number of deaths from these “international” attacks similarly increased, from 625 in 2003 to 1,907 in 2004. Back in April, NCTC’s acting director John Brennan claimed that the 2003 and 2004 data could not be fairly compared, because, according to him, a different counting methodology was adopted in 2004. Brennan’s claim was disputed, however, by Democratic congressman Henry Waxman, who, according to CNN, said that State Department and NCTC officials who briefed congressional leaders indicated that “the methodology and definitions used to vet the data were identical to last year’s.”
The number of attacks and deaths for 2004 would be even higher if complete data from the “central front in the War on Terror” were included in the administration’s terrorism statistics. The NCTC figures do not include attacks on U.S. troops fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. If they did, the number of deaths in 2004 would be 958 higher, for a total of 4,150 2,865, and the number of attacks, at an average of 40 per day in Iraq alone, would be about 14,600 higher, yielding an incredible 17,800.
In this week’s announcement, outgoing NCTC director Brennan referred to a new source of terrorism-related data on the web, the “Terrorism Knowledge Base,” which is run by the Oklahoma City-based non-profit National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (which, in turn, is funded by the Department of Homeland Security). The Terrorism Knowledge Base features a nifty “analytical tools” section where you can construct your own charts and graphs using their data. I used the online graph wizard to make the following graph of “international” terrorist attacks from 1995 to 2004:
Notice that because the data sets and terrorism definitions used were different (tkb.org uses data from the RAND Corporation), this graph differs from the one we prepared in April that was based on NCTC data. The axis labels on this graph are hard to read, but the terrorism rate decreases steadily through Clinton’s second term, bottoming out in the year 2000, and then it rises again dramatically. I think this graph is one of the best illustrations I’ve seen yet of the difference between what Karl Rove described as the “liberal” and “conservative” approaches to combatting terrorism.
===================
EDITOR’S NOTE: Greetings to Atrios readers, and a program note: Eric wrote the piece and created the chart before news of the London attacks broke. There’s no prescience, just a tragic coincidence.
– wb
IF you haven’t heard, or chosen to listen to the words of GWB, so be it. Me pointing you to a speech where he basically states that a democratic form of government is less likely to be a haven for terrorists and will lead to a more democratic ME, you simply aren’t listening. You can disagree, but it is a plan nonetheless.
Once again, you prove that your plan is to complain about Bush. You offered none.
Isn’t it odd that the president of the USA is the son of the former head of the secret police… who has also been president.
In any other country they know to worry.
p.s (clintons penis)
anybody
I have listened closely to the ords of GWB.
so far, this sums it up.
“Crusading is Hard Work”
and “you forgot Poland!”
That’s all i got from it…
So, how do we winn this war? What is the goal? Who is the enemey, and how do we know we’re winning or losing?
Also, who keeps moving the goalposts?
anybody?
anybody?
anybody?
thought not.
Well terrorism wasn’t a big concern until Bush came along….
What utter ignorance of the facts.
CLINTONSPENIS!
Looking at the record, Bush failed to make terrorism an important issue until AFTER WE WERE ATTACKED. Fuckin’ jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenyus work, fake “Atrios”.
No, see the plan involves no “therapy” or “touchy-feely” crap. It involves reasoned strategy with long-term plans for securing ourselves. Why? Because waving a gun doesn’t make you secure in the world. Knowing why things are screwed up and taking the time to prevent such things from happening again does.
Dumbass.
“Yea, we have a plan, we impeach Bush…and then we …?”
Impeach Cheney.
“OK, we pull out of Iraq and….?”
Strawman. Look up “quagmire” in your dictionary (assuming you own one). The only good way out is not to get in.
“Well terrorism wasn’t a big concern until Bush came along….we’ll make it less of a concern.”
Actually, terrorism *was* a big concern under Clinton, and the graph above indicates how well that administration handled it. Ignoring terrorism was Bush’s plan until 9/12/01. Didn’t work too well, did it?
“We’ll have a protest and….?”
This is so moronic my brain hurts just trying to compose a reply.
“We’ll call Republicans who support the war and ignore the 29 democrats who also signed the resolution.”
Like most of your drivel, this has nothing whatsoever to do with reducing terrorism, but would it be to obvious to point out that every single one of the signees, Democrat or Republican, was LIED to about the casus belli? (Look that one up in your dictionary, too.)
“Terrorists only need peace love and understanding.”
The power of Elivs Costello is vast, but I don’t think just one of his songs will do the job.
“A democratic Iraq” isn’t a plan, it’s an outline.
What’s the plan? The actual plan, not the abstract. The devil is in the details and GWB has none. He never has throughout his entire career, be it business or political.
Give me the details or take your own advice and STFU.
Hm, Ari Fleicher flashback – “That question’s answered”. There’s a massive gap between Bush’s rhetoric and action that’s readily apparently to any reasonably attentive lemur, but not you. If you can actually find this administration’s plan, I could take it apart and show you.
Okay, so a democratic form of government is less likely to trigger terrorism. Why, then, did Bush delay the elections in Iraq? The claim was that they couldn’t use the UN lists – but that is basically what they used.
One big reason why the left doesn’t have “a plan” is because Bush doesn’t have a plan. Another is that Bush continually screws everything up worse. Any idiot could have told you that disbanding the entire Iraqi army and leaving a bunch of pissed off trained soldiers unemployed was a bad plan. Trouble is, Bush isn’t just any idiot.
Step 1 – regain power. This is so that someone else can actually fix Bush’s mess. The best way to accomplish that is to get people to realize that Bush is horribly mismanaging the “War on Terror”. Did you see earlier in this thread where his administration blew the cover on an Al-Qaeda double agent? Boy, talk about “Aid and comfort” to the terrorists.
After that? Stop saber-rattling, it only helps the radicals. Fight government corruption, here, Iraq, the UN, Africa. All bad. Cut the Gordian knot in Israel/Palestine – the path to peace in the middle east goes through there, not Iraq. Announce that the US has no intention of keeping permanent bases in Iraq. Put a halt to radical de-Baathification, and allow Sunnis who didn’t commit crimes to re-join the government.
Internationalize the occupation – which means letting go of control, and acknowledging mistakes. Set a series of steps toward withdrawal. Dismantle the walls around the Green Zone, and the corrupt infrastructure it protects. Give the Iraqis the money to rebuild their country, not Halliburton. Get the US out of Saddam’s palaces.
Fire Rumsfeld. Start rebuilding the military. Make sure that every soldier has modern body armor. Increase production of armored vehicles. Put more research money into the IED problem. Get to a sustainable point where the regular military can handle deployments. Set up peace-enforcing light infantry units who can be deployed to trouble spots more frequently. Spending less of the 51% of the world’s military budget we spend on high-tech toys.
Take border security seriously. Upgrade security. Raise taxes to a level where the economy is sustainable. Increase VA benefits to take care of the new veterans we’re creating.
Stop funding dictatorships in Central Asia. Stop playing footsie with Musharraf and A. Q. Khan. Close down Gitmo (a symbolic move) and stop holding detainees outside of US law. If we have the evidence, arrest them and do what needs to be done. If we don’t, let them go.
Recognize that terror-as-a-tactic isn’t going to go away. Look at the British and French models for living in the shadow of terror. Start including Muslims and people who speak fricking Arabic and know the difference between Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims in the FBI’s antiterrorism plans.
Start a second Apollo-scale projects for energy independence – fusion reactors and orbital mirrors are not far out of reach. Brace for Peak Oil.
Oh, and “Atrios” – Clinton’s people told Condi that terrorism would be her main focus. She didn’t listen. Ashcroft didn’t list terrorism as one of his top 10 priorities. In fact, Ashcroft wanted to cut counter-terrorism funding.
I love the idea, and it’s not much of an idea, on the part of the right wingnut losers here that one needs to “have an idea” to be able comment here.
Hey, asswipes, this is your mess. You clean it up. I know that all of you fake conservatives are used to having your nanny change your diapers. But the rest of us adults aren’t here to clean up your mess. And if it offends you when we tell you smell liek fresh shit, too bad.
I really have to wonder how most of the people in London feel about Blair and bush’s close relationship now.
Anybody:
The Commander in Chief is the one that is supposed to have a plan.
Lets review this so called plan:
1. Invade Iraq aka cakewalk. Well that didn’t turn out so good…
2. Capture and destroy all those nasty WMD and prevent the certainty of that big ol mushroom cloud. Um, that didn’t work out too well either.
3. Bring em on. Our military really hate this part of the plan that put a bullseye on their backs.
4. Stay the course. Actually that is not a plan that is simply a hope that things will eventually, someday get better. Maybe.
So far we have 1 and 2 which are just lies and not a plan. And we have 3 and 4 which are stupid dreams of an ignorant fool so not a plan either.
At this point having no plan is still better than having the non-plan of the Commander in Chief
And of course, CLINTON’s PENIS! is relevant,
because it is what far too many conservatives were focused on, while ‘liberals’ like me were calling for the a multi-lateral invasion of Afghanistan..
yeah, back in 1998, that is what this liberal wanted…
but the blue dress was FAR more important, wasn’t it? But was it more important than the thousands of US dead on Bush’s watch…?
eventually, anybody, your veil will fall as well, and you will see Bush for who he is,
a cheerleader, and not a Commander in Chief.
a crooked doubletalker, and not an honest leader
a sneering, not swaggering, played-out cowboy.
Greyspace – I wish I’d written what you did. That level of eloquence is rarely achieved in the restrictive “blog comment” format. Kudos.
“Atrios” – I’ll save you the trouble; the word “eloquence” means “persuasive, powerful discourse or the skill or power of using such discourse.”
Silly liberals! You think Dear Leader doesn’t have a winning plan for Iraq? Well, this should shut you up:
1. Blow a lot of shit up.
2. ?????
3. Democracy!
Game. Set. Match.
Fuckholery
Let me be upfront about this – I’ve gotten flack from more than a few e-mailers and other bloggers about daring to make a political commentary on the attacks and their import. We are constantly reminded by conservatives who need…
“‘We’ll have a protest’ . . . and then?”
Once again, a circumlocution used not so much in the US as in Australia or South Africa. God, you tedious right wing fucks from the former Dominions and your nasty out-from-under-the-rock Apartheid hard-ons for the US to kill brown people on your behalf. I’m sick of you ex-colonial whitey trolls.
Note to all: most trolls aren’t even Americans.
wow…what’s the whole point again of this “what is your plan?” garbage? the people in power are the ones who need a plan, they’re the one’s who can implement it. bush has no plan, but the people who own him do.
and anyone who thinks they can hunt liberals, come get me. i’ll start a trophy case.
Step 1: Collect Underpants
Step 2:
Step 3: Profit!
“Atrios” was yanking your chain.
“Approximately 15,000 Soviets were killed and over 53,000 wounded.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Invasion_of_Afghanistan
The terrorist we are fighting in Iraq are the same ones we would be fighting in Afghanistan.
Somehow the proponents of investing 100,000 troops in Afghanistan does not inspire my belief in the potential for success.
It would have been a quagmire.
Along comes Iraq. Dictatorship, violating the Surrender of 91, openly paying 25,000 to suicide bombers. Yep, Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. We are now there at the behest of the government. The first true representative government in the ME. When they can support themselves, we leave. They will not require continued finacial support, and the progress relative to Afghanistan for the Soviets is striking.
Advocates of not invading Iraq and investing more soldiers in Afghanistan-when would that thing end? Do you mind if we had 3 times the number of casualties?
The only country that ever offered an exit strategy-Iraq. We have an ally, other than Israel.
The dems have no plan for dealing with terrorism, pure and simple.
Saw a shot at the internationalizing thingy. Can you coordinate the oil for food scandal with it? Please explain.
Alternate forms of energy? Wonder waht would happen if the WTC in 93 had a garage full of hydrogen cell cars? I favor alternate forms of energy, and would like to see a large rail system to replace long haul trucking. Good luck on keeping unemployment low with that. Good luck stopping a terrorist from blowing up the rail. Every possible solution makes us even more vulnerable.
The big stick theory only works if you whack somebody. Libya gives up its WMD program? Say it ain’t so. North korea’s number one purchaser of arms? Iraq. I’m sure that KJL never would have sought to sell nukes to anybody. AQ Khan? No one really listened to him anyway. Botulinum, anthrax, small pox(soviet strain), old soviet nukes, Iran-
Do you think that as time goes by the world is increasing its capabilities of killing itself off?
All this and you have no plan? I feel better with Bush. Am I optimistic? No. Is it the only game in town? Yes.
This was never just about Iraq, it has always been about playing offense of defense. If we continue to play defense we are stuck waiting for the dems to come along, and can never win. If we establish an ally in the war on terrorism, in Iraq, we have won one of the greatest battles for the hearts and minds in the ME.
Close Gitmo? You really are out of touch with your own countrymen. Enlist in the French Army, you’ll be safer.
Is there any democrat here who actually follows the progress in Iraq? No.
[...] I recall Donald Rumsfeld was searching for one a couple years ago, and after a lot of flack–not that much actually, the press pretty much gave up after a while and this story took a back seat to missing white girls–they have released the new statistics. Surprise, surprise, we’re in deep doo doo. [...]
Did I mention that you have no plan?
” … a speech where he basically states that a democratic form of government is less likely to be a haven for terrorists … ”
Comment by anybody — 7/7/2005 @ 11:05 am
What? Are you joking?
Do you think what’s going on in Iraq is democracy?
A place where we set up the parties people could vote for (we didn’t even allow them to vote for indaviduals), and where most of the entries on the ballot didn’t even have that is a democracy.
Sure, let’s have a democracy ion Iraq.
Did we tell them that means a COMPLETE separation of church and state? did we tell them that it means EVERYONE is equal, Sunnis, Shi’a Kurds AND women? Are we enforcing that?
Democracy in Iraq, what a joke.
Hey anybody, here’s a plan:
The liberals are in charge of America, and conservatives get out of the way and shut the hell up, because so far, the only things you guys seem to be capable of is making things worse, not better.
And I’m not just talking about the “war” on terror … how’s the economy these days?
Or the US health care system?
The environment?
Tell us what you’ve done right
What’s that Anybody, we have to have a plan before we can talk about how you idiots are screwing things up?
Jesus, talk about a failure of the American educational system … you wingers are just lost … especially when the real world hits you in the face.
Remember, freedom is on the march, and they hate us for our freedom.
Now clap louder!
No, you don’t need a plan if you are going to vote.
If you are going to lead….
Hey, don’t take it from us center-right “wingnuts.” Ask Harvard:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html
Before analyzing the data, Abadie believed it was a reasonable assumption that terrorism has its roots in poverty, especially since studies have linked civil war to economic factors. However, once the data was corrected for the influence of other factors studied, Abadie said he found no significant relationship between a nation’s wealth and the level of terrorism it experiences.
“In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but in fact when you look at the data, it’s not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism, as previous studies have shown, but perhaps more surprisingly also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin,” Abadie said.
Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.
Like those with much political freedom, nations at the other extreme – with tightly controlled autocratic governments – also experienced low levels of terrorism.
Though his study didn’t explore the reasons behind the trends he researched, Abadie said it could be that autocratic nations’ tight control and repressive practices keep terrorist activities in check, while nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments – such as currently taking place in Iraq and Russia – may be politically unstable, which makes them more vulnerable.
“When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism,” Abadie said.
Let’s review those last grafs again:
nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments – such as currently taking place in Iraq and Russia – may be politically unstable, which makes them more vulnerable.
“When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism,” Abadie said.
“The terrorist we are fighting in Iraq are the same ones we would be fighting in Afghanistan.
It would have been a quagmire.”
Where’d you attend military college Anybody, Fredonia Military Academy under the Rufus T. Firefly Scholarship?
If that’s really what the brilliant military minds of the right are thinking, no wonder we’re getting our asses handed to us.
Casey-
When do you think the democrats will get back in control?
Are you predicting a 32 seat swing in the house? 5 seats in the Senate?
The dems haven’t even come close to rock bottom, but with the dead weight that the far left(the equivalent of the religious right) brings to the table, you’ll be getting to rock bottom sooner than later. The presidency isn’t decided by the left or the right-it is the independents. The only demographic that Kerry improved upon relative to 2000, were high school dropouts, and PHd’s. African American, Latin, women, seniors, teens, et al. the list oges on forever. Your policies are killing your only chance of beating Bush. I love egging you turds along.
The dems have no plan for dealing with terrorism, pure and simple.
HA!
How about dealing with Osama? Does that sound like a plan?
Maybe you idiots should have been going after who IS responsible for all this, rather than screwing around in Iraq.
Your ineptitude is costing peoples their lives.
Mac explain how it is wrong…oh that’s right complaining is the democratic solution to everything. Do you want me to show you the democracy corps polls, where Greenburg and carville are trying to help you, by telling you that the number one gripe about dems is that they have no plan?
Anybody – you are a bad joke of right-wing talking points. The oil-for-food “scandal” is a bogus smokescreen.
The US sat on the committee that approved contracts. A great deal of the corruption benefited US companies. Saddam got far more money from smuggling oil – which the US tactitly approved, for the benefit of allies like Jordan. More money has been stolen or mismanaged under American management than during oil-for-food – have you read any stories about the CPA’s accounting? Billions of dollars of Iraqi money not accounted for?
AQ Khan – nobody ever listened to him anyway? Do you have any idea who he is? Or of Pakistan’s central role in nuclear proliferation? Obviously not.
The terrorists are are fighting in Iraq are the same ones we would be fighting in Afghanistan? Your idiocy leaves me speechless. Even the administration has quietly admitted that the insurgency is largely composed of Iraqis. Um, also – if we’re fighting in Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan, why are we still fighting in Afghanistan, the world’s opium breadbasket?
This, of course, is the central reason why conservatives claim that liberals have no plans – because their best skill is lying to themselves.
Hey, don’t take it from us center-right “wingnuts.” Ask Harvard
Oh yeah, Harvard … there’s a bastion of liberalism …
“… nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments – such as currently taking place in Iraq … ”
LOL … that’s rich, you fundies crack me up with your fairy tales … now tell me the one about how global warming is a “myth”.
When do you think the democrats will get back in control?
Comment by anybody
How those poll numbers looking these days kiddo?
Democrats don’t have a plan …
Some Democrats and liberals, not always the same entities, have lots of plans for dealing with terrorists and with the conditions that enable terrorists to flourish. One of our plans is to avoid creating those conditions and then calling them “flypaper.”
The problem is that most effective plans cannot be translated into the sort of language the Bush administration supporters represented on this thread appreciate, i.e., “Hulk smash,” and are therefore not considered to be plans.
Hey, le petit Macarthur, show me how the guys were; fighting in Iraq are from Afghanistan.
Last time I checked, they were 95% home grown.
Flypaper from Anybody … hey, how’s that whole flypaper thing working? Did the bombers in London today just miss the flight to Faluja.
C’mon, tell me …
UBL is in Pakistan. The strongest Al-Queda connections are there. Musharref is a dead man walking. Cause unrest in Pakistan, and you risk giving the cause that brings the Taliban to power. That is…to nuclear power. Sure, let’s go send troops into Pakistan. A wonderful democratic solution. We kill UBL and terrorism ends? You really do not understand the problem we face. I’m not in love with the Bush foreign policy, but it has more rationale than any of you have offerred.
Oil for food?
Are you listen to Murdoch again Anybody?
If you believe him, I’ve got some WMDs to sell you, cheap.
Only cost 1700+ American lives.
95%? Please source that nugget.
UBL is in Pakistan.
You mean Osama?
Then why don’t we GO GET HIM?
Following your “rational” (and I use that term loosely), going after Tojo would have been a bad mistake, better if we were to invade New Zealand, and draw the Imperial Army of Nippon to us.
Hey pal, you’re the one that said their from ‘Stan.
You back up your claim.
Iraq produces 20 billion us dollars in oil yearly.
We could produce more than that domestically if we drill off CA, FL, and inside Alaska.
How much did you guys want to spend on the third world country of Afghanistan? A kind estimate had it at 4 trillion for bringing them up to speed to pre war Iraq. That does not include the casualties along the way.
Still waiting for the democratic plan to deal with terrorism. You may not have noticed but it was growing long before Bush came into office. 19 men killed 3000.
Even if we only had 10,000 terrorists, that would be 1.5 million Americans. Great plan.
You may also want ot take a look at the pew polls of ME opinions of the US. We went from 15% to single digits. But if you now include Iraq, we are as a whole more popular than we have ever been in the ME. Can you say intelligence operatives?
Yeah, and once Musharref is dead, they’ll all just stop.
You fundies and your fantasies.
Look! Over there! Yellow Cake from Niger!
Cause unrest in Pakistan … yeah, such a calm place, ain’t it.
Good thing that dictator in charge is on our side (more or less).
For now.
So you throw out a number of 95%, but you have nothing to back up your claim?
That’s called a lie. Makes you about as legit as Bush is in a democrats eye’s. But you have some special authority that makes you believe that Bush is a liar, so you are justifed in lying? There’s a certain Republican logic to it.
We could produce more than that domestically if we drill off CA, FL, and inside Alaska.
Yeah, screw the environment.
Typical fundie.
What kind of SUV you drive Anybody?
Was it worth having kids die so you can fill it with gas?
Bill-anytime you want to give the Pakistani government over to the Taliban…
Still waiting for the democratic plan to deal with terrorism.
How about not playing into our enemies hand by invading Iraq?
How about going after the guys that did this to us (Where IS Osama? Goss knows, doesn’t he)?
How about cutting off the Saudi’s at the knees since that’s where the majority of the hijackers came from, AND they fund more terrorism than Iraq ever has (better not look at who’s holding the note on our national debt though).
Is that enough of a plan for you?
Probably not.
How about raising CAFE standards by 3 MPG for all vehicles (which would negate out need for foreign produced oil)?
Nah … that’s too proactive.
Better to go pick a fight with someone who poses no threat to us and had nothing to do with 9/11.
In reading back some clarifcation is needed regarding the composite of the taliban in Afghanistan.
It was the frontline in the battle against the soviets. Notice how the leader’s of AL-Queda aren’t from there? Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan…the taliban liked Afghanistan because there was no real government, they ruked it because they had the guns. For all I care they can still rule it…it is a rock farm.
Have you noticed the number of Saudi’s we are picking off in Iraq? Oh that’s right you don’t need sources of info, except Dean’s talking points. So politically astute your party will nominate HRC, instead of Evan Bayh. Thanks for 2008 guys. Sorry for the digression, but I llove pointing to the ‘suicide mentality’ occurring in the democratic party is.
Again, Harvard says…
nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments – such as currently taking place in Iraq and Russia – may be politically unstable, which makes them more vulnerable.
“When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism,” Abadie said.
You moonbats are funny. 100,000 troops in Afghanistan? I think the Soviets tried that. Uranium from Niger? Senate says Joe Wilson lied, not Bush. You have lots of plans for dealing with terrorists? I bet you do, but Americans have heard them and they think you’re a bunch of weenies who can’t be trusted to do the job right.