Do people really believe that Bush, or Clinton, could have ordered some kind of pre-emptive strike that would have prevented 9/11? I find myself in agreement with Rumsfeld -- stunning revelation I know -- since I never thought I'd say those words on this blog and am likely never to again. But this is all nonsense and a distraction from what we really need to be doing. We shouldn't be second guessing for the sake of second-guessing right now -- we should be spending our efforts examining how our multi-layered government in a society dedicated to individual freedoms is communicating with one another to prevent a repeat. My bet is it hasn't improved much since September 2001. I hope I'm wrong.

I keep thinking of Civil War battles (and others of course) where men lined up on either side of the battlefield, advancing and shooting until they were hit or until they hit someone. Is that what people think this is about? It's sort of like WWI -- we're fighting a war in a way that's never been fought before and I don't see much evidence that our military has adapted. Sure, we have high tech weapons and smart bombs, but fundamentally we're still lining up on one side of the battlefield while our enemies keep moving around.

Everyone knows you can't hit a moving target. And I don't believe you can destroy assassins by becoming one. So let's just stop talking nonsense. I walk around with the certainty, that someone somewhere is laughing at us as they plan the next one -- because they know us better than we know ourselves. And what can be scarier than that?