Why is the liberal left so deranged over Bush protecting us from terrorists? Who knows, and honestly, who cares. When Al Qaeda contacts someone in the US, it is probably not to wish us all a long and peaceful life. Apparently we have had, on average, 25 attacks per year planned against us over the last four years (give or take a few months).

According to the FBI and statistics provided by the Justice Department, there have been more than 100 instances of planned terrorist activities within the United States that have been thwarted by domestic surveillance. These include an attempt to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, the Mall of America and the Holland Tunnel.

That is roughly an attack every other week. Think about that. If undetected, we could lose a lot of Americans every year. If every attack could kill 100 people (a fraction of the 9-11 death toll) then we could have lost 10,000 people by now, or 2500 people a year. If we assume the terrorists could do a third as well as they did on 9-11, on average, then we would see 1000 people per attack dead. or 100,0oo dead now, with 25,000 dead per year. Every other week 1000 dead if terrorist only could inflict a third of the damage they did on 9-11.

You can do the math for the same level of destruction or higher. Is this the price we pay for idiotic theories about probable cause? If a terrorist is contacting someone in the US, then that is all the probable cause we need to monitor those communications. I dare any liberal to argue otherwise.

UPDATE:

And the insanity on the left continues to reach new levels. Someone is now considering suing Bush for stopping his plans to attack us.

Iyman Faris, the only named American target of the National Security Agency’s secret warrantless wiretap program, will consider a lawsuit against the president of the United States, according to his criminal defense attorney, David Smith.
…
To accomplish this goal, Smith has issued an all points bulletin for civil liberties attorneys and constitutional scholars interested in taking up his client’s case. “If some lawyer would like to sue on behalf of Faris, I would be happy to introduce them,” Smith told Salon Thursday evening. “I’ve got the man here.”

The offer comes at a time of concern among civil liberties attorneys, who worry that the courts may never get a chance to adjudicate the legality of President Bush’s secret wiretap program. “Courts don’t like to hear hypothetical matters,” said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty program, who has been preparing for a court battle. “There has to be a real plaintiff with a real injury.”

For those who do not recall, there is a reminder on the events surrounding this case

Faris pleaded guilty in October 2003 to working with al-Qaida on a plot to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. Prosecutors alleged that the trucker from Ohio had traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan to meet with Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. He is serving a 20-year sentence at a supermax federal prison in Colorado.

Shortly before sentencing, Faris attempted to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he had admitted to the plot in an effort to secure a book deal.

A book deal? Please tell me the left has not gone this far over the edge. Is anyone dumb enough to think there is no evidence of this man’s guilt?

Faris admitted that upon returning to the United States from Pakistan in April 2002, he researched “gas cutters” – the equipment for severing bridge suspension cables – and the New York City bridge on the Internet. Between April 2002 and March 2003, he sent several coded messages through another individual to his longtime friend in Pakistan, indicating he had been unsuccessful in his attempts to obtain the necessary equipment. Faris admitted to traveling to New York City in late 2002 to examine the bridge, and said he concluded that the plot to destroy the bridge by severing cables was unlikely to succeed because of the bridge’s security and structure. In early 2003, he sent a message that “the weather is too hot” – a coded message indicating that the bridge plot was unlikely to succeed.

So now stopping people like Faris is supposedly illegal? If so we new better laws, and more intelligent lawyers.