...but still maintain my question hasn't been answered. What's been said essentially boils down to this: If we're not at maximum vigilance, treating every single perceived threat as being equally dire, then we'll allow something bad to happen. That's when the blood flows in the street, of course.

I fail to see how that attitude, which essentially reflects the Bush/Cheney "One Percent Doctrine" of Suskind's book, proves (or even suggests) that people who question our reaction to terror threats will take pleasure at injury and death in America, if (God forbid) it happens again.

To reiterate, ALL thinking, caring people want an effective reaction to terror threats. We ought to be able to have a civil discussion of how best to achieve this, without inflammatory and untrue claims impugning the motives of those who merely question our current practices. Speaking for myself, I obviously would take NO pleasure in any future terror attack in the U.S. or anywhere else, and truly doubt that there is more than a relative handful of mentally ill people who WOULD take any such pleasure.

The only possible conclusion from this fundamentally silly accusation of "treason" against the NYT is that the right wing is simply flexing its muscles, to be sure it's able to maintain control of the public discourse.

We've seen fitful moments when the so-called mainstream media starts to gag at the restraints imposed on them, asking questions that need to be asked while fulfilling their crucial role as a key check-and-balance against government misdeeds. Those in power are straining mightily to suppress the MSM, to put them back "in line" and prevent any further attempts at accountability and truth-telling.

Pathetic, isn't it, that so many citizens are willing -- eager, in fact -- to cede full power without question to ANY government, in the vain belief that this will protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic? There's a famous quotation usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin (although there's some dispute about its origin) that is extremely apt at this point:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

No matter who first said it, this is an essential truth. We must all realize that it's self-defeating and literally illogical to give up what MAKES the United States special in a vain attempt to preserve that same country.

...not just three, as the old aphorism claimed. These days, we have "Lies, damned lies, statistics -- and POLITICAL SPIN."

For some reason, those "political spin" lies seem the easiest to swallow for too many people, probably because they represent the way they'd LIKE the world to be. If you believe hard enough, and clap your hands, maybe your wish WILL come true -- Tinkerbell will live after all!

Let's be realistic here, folks. OF COURSE almost all high government officials could make much more in the private sector at any given moment. Only an idiot fails to recognize that.

But the payback for being "underpaid" during their tenure as public officials often comes LATER -- never forget the good old revolving door between public and private sectors that spins ever faster these days. AMAZING how quickly departing officials in Congress and the executive branch are snapped up for extremely well paid positions, based either on their experience and knowledge of how the system operates, or (cynically) as literal payback for the favors granted to a company or industry WHILE IN PUBLIC OFFICE.

So, Novak describes his primary source "as a 'senior administration official' who was 'no partisan gunslinger'"?

Talk about your rare bird -- with THIS administration, most unbiased observers would say non-partisans were completely extinct!

Q

This is utterly, utterly mindless. As the old saying goes, NOT to decide is to DECIDE. If we can't sort out real threats from non-threats, we've lost the battle. It's absolutely unworkable to consider all possibilities, no matter how remote, as equally likely -- that's a recipe for complete paralysis and inaction.

I've been mired in pointless exchanges in the War Room recently with a person identified as "Joe" who claims to believe that anyone questioning our current system to evaluate and respond to terror threats really wants to see blood in American streets. I can't wait to see similar B.S. in light of this story.

The Wikipedia entry for Mr. Robert David Sanders Novak describes him in its opening paragraph as a political commentator, political figure, columnist, and television personality. Conspicuous by its absence is the word "journalist."

Personally, I prefer the famous Jon Stewart description: "Douchebag of Liberty"

Your observations about what "the enemy" would by all rules of logic already HAVE to know, and would have then done with "secret information" about terrorist monitoring, are obviously correct. But then again, you're laboring under the mistaken assumption that logic plays a major role in Washington D.C. these days.

Logic has been supplanted with the four P's: posturing, posing, pandering and politics.

The figure at the right side of this article is entitled "Incumbents", and displays a map of the U.S. with faces placed on various states, implicitly (to me, anyway) suggesting that these people are 10 vulnerable incumbents in the upcoming election.

Over the state of Ohio, the smiling face of the despicable Ken Blackwell appears -- luckily for Ohio, Mr. Blackwell is NOT our current governor, and with any luck, he never WILL be. Of course, Ohio is "blessed" at this time with arguably the worst governor in the entire country, and possibly of all time: Bob Taft. While it's hard to imagine how anyone COULD be worse than Taft, I'm quite confident that Blackwell has the potential to be much more destructive than the simply incompetent Taft.

The prospects for Ted Strickland are good this year -- with any luck, and with a lot of work, Blackwell will never occupy the governor's mansion in Ohio.

So, while the article itself clearly says that Blackwell is Ohio's Secretary of State, not the sitting governor, maybe you should correct the figure alongside this article to clarify this matter. Thanks!