Zarkawi was the alleged planner of 9/11 and we caught and killed him. And 19 of the planners are definitely dead - they were on the planes.

Whether or not bin Laden is dead (and frankly, I'm hoping that he assumed cave temperature due to natural causes are true because why make the s.o.b. a martyr) is irrelevant. We have caught and captured (and killed) thousands of terrorists, as have our allies around the world. Not everybody is as feckless in defending the U.S.A. as liberals!

They also found a member of Al Quida in the USA. Is Bush harboring terrorists?

The "scope of the problem we face" has been broadened immeasurably by the ill-conceived and mismanaged adventure in Iraq. Democrats understand that we are indeed in a critically important struggle. And that the way bush is managing it is making it more difficult to prevail. The successes in the struggle have been exactly in the area "liberals" have been arguing for: Kerry was laughed at by your types for saying the war on terrorism was about intelligence gathering and law enforcement. The successes after Afganistan have been in the area of police work. And before anyone jumps in and says democrats are against intelligence gathering, let me point out the argument is for LEGAL intelligence gathering. Like they did in England in uncovering the airline plot. You wouldn't want Hillary spying on you illegally would you? The problem is that bush fails to understand the nature of the enemy and what it will take to defeat them. And so do you.

Now I see why you call yoruself Demcorat, you're an idiot.

1) Kerry has a history of voting to cut intelligence funding, even after the 1993 WTC attack.

2) Some forms of terrorism clearly rise above a law-enforcement problem and are a military problem. The fact that Kerry could not accept that is one of the things that cost him the election.

3) The Afghan police are only able to do the work that they can do because of a military defeat of the Taliban.

And finally, 4) The British use a "reasonable suspicion" standard for searches and arrest warrants. We use a higher threshhold called "probable cause." We only use a "reasonable suspicion" standard for subpoenas and so-called "Terry-stops." If I recall, your side of the political divide went totally bonkers when it found out that the administration was using a "resonable suspicion" standard in many itnelligence-gathering operations. Are you seriously suggesting a Constitutional amendment to copy the Brit method in all areas? You praise the British success on one hand, but condemn the President for doing the same with the other.

Get an education.