Don't ignore the reality that the Hamdan decision, as satisfying as it may have been, was truly a close decision. Given that Chief Justice Roberts, had he participated rather than recusing himself, would have added a fourth dissenting vote, this 5-to-4 split is hardly reassuring. Any justice who voted with the majority would certainly be replaced by Bush with yet another Scalia/Alito/Thomas/Roberts clone.

The sweeping repudiation of the Imperial Presidency of George Bush, summarized so well at the end of this article ("THE EXECUTIVE IS BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE OF LAW"), could quite easily have been the plaintive moan from the losing side -- remember dear Ann Coulter's recent wish that someone poison John Paul Stevens? THANK GOD Justice Stevens is still with us!

This was a CLOSE CALL, folks -- it proves, once and for all, that it IS important to elect Presidents who will nominate the right people to the Supreme Court. Pray that none of the five justices in the majority this time leaves the court before 2009 -- and that we DO elect a proper President in November 2008, or at least a Democratic Senate in November 2006!

...and recalled the immortal words of Captain Renault, as he ordered the closing of Rick's Cafe Americaine:

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

WHO would have ever suspected Mehlman's reported involvement with Abramoff?

"I'm shocked, shocked..."

...and others who've made the same point, we truly seem to be faced with the "boy who cried wolf" when these so-called dire threats are reported. The real story won't be known for weeks or months, of course, but who can be faulted for being realistic AND cynical?

Given the multiple times when threats turned out to be overblown, our "leaders" who continue crying wolf MUST bear the burden for deadening Americans to all such threats of domestic terrorism.

I don't know that I describe myself as "liberal", but I'll bet that Joe and his ilk would say I am -- personally, I prefer "reality-based." As for being a "Bush hater," I certainly don't respect his performance as President, but don't come close to hating him. In any case, I'd like to pose a question to Joe and anyone else who agrees with his last post, which ended this way:

"For liberals and Bush haters it won't be worth it until Americans are dead in the streets."

How does one make the logical (or more properly, ILLOGICAL) jump between the observation that our leaders should be a lot more selective about trumpeting every single incident as a dire threat (since that obviously numbs us and prevents reacting appropriately to real threats), to the conclusion that anyone questioning performance of our leaders WANTS TO SEE DEAD PEOPLE IN AMERICAN STREETS?

Where's the connection? Joe, why do you and so many others attempt to tar those posing legitimate questions with such poisonous slurs? I, personally, want to see effective, reality-based assessment and reaction to threats made against this country. I have concluded, after recent experience with Pres. Bush and his administration, that they apparently can't determine which threats are real, and which are complete jokes (like the Miami "plot" against the Sears Tower).

Seriously, Joe, could you explain why you think anyone questioning Bush and Co. is actually thirsting after American blood in our streets? I'd really like to understand!

Building on the last post by Paradox:

Considering the "1% Rule" adopted by the Bush-Cheney administration (why do I always wonder which name to put first in that phrase?), does it strike anyone else as odd how little we've heard about anthrax recently?

It seems pretty fair to conclude there's at least a 1% chance of another anthrax attack, since whoever unleashed the earlier ones is still out there, somewhere. So, why haven't we seen the oft-quoted "movement of heaven and earth" to prevent another attack? Why is the Bush administration so complacent about THIS threat?

Guess the Anthrax Study Squad (oops, sorry for that COMPLETELY accidental acronym!) was disbanded about the same time as the special CIA group targeting Osama bin Laden...

Assuming you are serious (I'm intentionally avoiding the phrase "deadly serious"), I still want to know why you think anyone questioning how we're assessing and reacting to threats WANTS TO SEE DEAD AMERICANS IN THE STREETS.

I don't ascribe the worst motives to those with whom I disagree -- why do YOU think it's OK to do that?

It's a simple question -- there should be a simple answer.

One last attempt, because it appears futile to keep on asking (and I promise to stop, if you again refuse to answer): WHY do you think that anyone questioning how we now deal (or don't deal) with threats somehow wants to see American blood in the streets?

I assure you, I DO want effective responses to real threats, and obviously, the rub comes in deciding WHICH threats are, or could become, serious, and how to deal with them. My simple observation is that it serves NO purpose to consider all identified threats as equally serious -- no one can possibly deal with every possible threat with the same massive response. It just can't be done, and it absolutely DOES numb the public to truly serious threats when they come along.

However, that point is beyond my initial question to you -- can you please explain in simple English WHY you think any doubts or questions about how Bush & Co. are dealing with threats somehow translates into wanting death and destruction in the U.S.?