Absolutely. They'll step it up in the coming months. Al-Qaeda isn't totally incomptent; they remember that LBJ cut and run after Tet, despite the fact that Tet was a tactical disaster for the VC/North Vietnamese. Read a good history on Vietnam in 1972; the ebbs and flows of both North Vietnamese political/military activity and Nixon's use of same dictate how the war went. Since Howard Dean has made it part of his platform to pull out of Iraq ASAP and basically be everything Bush is not, al-Qaeda and the Ba'athists will do everything to ensure that Dean gets elected. I'm not saying that Dean is being funded or is sympathetic to either AQ or the Ba'athists, but they know that Bush wants to destroy them, and Dean wants to pull out. So yes, they will step up their attacks in the future.

Pay attention to the noises that hollow-headed Democrats are making these days when they open their mouths. "War in Iraq has not made America safer from terrorist attack." That's right. The Democrats ARE COUNTING ON terrorists killing Americans on American soil.

I would like to think that most of them don't think that way, but it scares me to know that at least a few of them do...

I think this is either poorly thought out, or I misunderstood the point. If we are considering the effect terrorist acts committed during the oncoming year will have on the 2004 US Presidential election, the 3 possibilities offered by the poster are: 1)A “quiet” period that “proves” GWB and the US policy have been effective in eliminating/diminishing terrorism, and GWB deserves be re-elected. 2)A “heightened” period of terrorism that “proves” GWB is fighting the “good fight”, and deserves to be re-elected. 3)A massive terrorist attack(s), that proves GWB and US policy are not working, and GWB does NOT deserve to be re-elected. I suggest that all of the above scenarios get GWB re-elected with the following historical footnotes: 1) 52% 2) 56% 3) 63%+ I question why terrorists might think that a new atrocity committed against, or in, the US would diminish GWB’s re-election probability. Do they forget how blue-collar Democratic workers responded to Bush at the WTC? Or are they listening to US media?

>I would like to think that most of them don't think that way, but it scares me to know that at least a few of them do..< Silence breeds conformity. If the Democrats *really* thought some of their number were making jackasses of themselves, they'd direct some type of effort at marginalizing them, rather than running them as Presidential candidates. A spade is a spade.

Attacks on "American soil" are different then overseas attacks. In the American psyche we treat them differently. AQ/Iraq Insurgency can drag out the war, but it wouldn't dislodge Bush. Or, spectacular attacks would either "strengthen resolve" or calls for a withdrawal. It can be manipulated either way.

>>Attacks on "American soil" are different then overseas attacks. In the American psyche we treat them differently. AQ/Iraq Insurgency can drag out the war, but it wouldn't dislodge Bush. Or, spectacular attacks would either "strengthen resolve" or calls for a withdrawal. It can be manipulated either way<< Under international law, an embassy or ship is "the soil" of its flag country. Counting the Iranian hostage crisis along with East African embassy bombings and the USS Cole, American "soil" has been attacked by Islamic terrorists several times, unanswered.

There are three broad camps on Iraq terrorist issue in US at moment. The Bush camp the Dean camp and the Hidden camp that thinks US is being to soft on arabs and muslims. The Hidden camp isnt talked about much because there views tend toward genocidal racism they view this as muslims declaring war on US and there response would be to reduce the middle east to a sheet of radioactive glass and drill through it afterwards to get the oil out. This group probaly adds up to 20+ % of US voters. Any attack on US mainland would probaly bring this view into public view and would work against any democrat trying to run as antiwar. In end I think any action the terrorists try to take Bush can spin to his benifit. No attacks Bush claims victory. Moderate attacks Bush plays pictures of 9/11 over and over and tells america to stay the course. Large scale attacks and bush chooses his next country to be liberated and starts talking about axis of evil again. After thinking about this I wish someone would tell me why Ossama thought it was good idea to declare war on US in the first place?

>>There are three broad camps on Iraq terrorist issue in US at moment. The Bush camp the Dean camp and the Hidden camp that thinks US is being to soft on arabs and muslims. The Hidden camp isnt talked about much because there views tend toward genocidal racism they view this as muslims declaring war on US and there response would be to reduce the middle east to a sheet of radioactive glass and drill through it afterwards to get the oil out. This group probaly adds up to 20+ % of US voters.<< I like your "hidden view." It is actually much closer to my view that either Bush's or Dean's. But I wouldn't call it racism, but rather illustration through reductio ad absurdia. First off, Islam is not a race, it's an ideology. I don't care if Muslims are black, brown, green, purple, white, or yellow. It's not their skin tone threatening me with jihad and extermination. You see, Muslim terrorists have attacked the West in general and the United States in particular because we will not submit to Islam. It is a position that can not be reasoned with. But, in coming to the battlefield with this "do Islam or die" condition for their enemy's surrender, the terrorists have offended one of my core beliefs, which is that totalitarians have the right to live only after worshipping the bottom of my foot and licking my left palm clean. They haven't asked for permission to worship my foot and lick my left palm clean. Therefore, they must die. This view might never have been formulated had not the Islamists and leftists of the world not emerged, with the wreckage of the World Trade Center still smoldering within hours of the collapse, rescue crews still digging with the hope of finding someone alive, to say that September 11th was America's fault, due to American policies. Well then, let reason reign. The reason we're nuking Arab cities is because they're full of people who refuse to worship my foot and lick my left palm. Maybe sometime beside the smoldering ruins of Mecca, we can turn to our Arab neighbors and say, you know this is your fault, don't you? Here, pray to my foot.

I remeber in late 90s when anti americanism was groing in the world and the press was reporting basicly as what are we doing wrong why dont these people love us. This view was based on view that if someone hated us it must be are fault. This view died on 9/11 and allot of american have come to view if we cant make them love us then making them fear us will work just as well. I dont beleave in the kill em all solution I have heard many people advocate outside of the press and politcal arena. But I do beleave that non democratic goverments have no legitmate claim to exist and they exist at the sufrence of democratic countrys I dont want to use military force to remove everyone of these countrys but they should know they exist only so long as they dont piss off the democratic world.