Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/ NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Article: "Instead of having any precise claim against America, these killers showed that their hurt arose from their own sense of envy and collective failure — as the now all too familiar references to "being humiliated" and lost honor in the tape attest."
Could explain why the Frogs oppose whatever we do, and the Rats here in the U.S., for that matter (envy power they lost and failure to gain it back). At any rate, the stifling of the human spirit seems to be a hallmark of that cult of death.
I wish that people would answer the question of 'whether we are safer how than 5 years ago' with the response of "maybe yes, maybe no. No one knows since that is not a quantifiable commodity as there is no suitable metric that could be used or agreed upon to determine it. Much has been done to beef up security (and sure there is no limit to how much is enough). However, the terrorists are also trying harder to kill us - we really don't know everything about that side and thus the net result is always going to be questionable...... The right questions are 'Are we safer than we would have been if the path that the country was on under Clinton was allowed to continue? Are we safer now than we would have been under the appeasing regimes that would have resulted under Gore and Kerry? How many attacks and catastrophes been prevented versus how many known ones have been attempted? .... and so on. The problem I see with the question of 'are we safer now than we were 5 years ago' is that even if the answer is an emphatic no, that does not necessarily mean that a bad job is being done any more than if an answer of yes meant that a good job was being done. It's far to complicated an issue to address in such a simplistic form and ultimately any answer is quite misleading.
bump