I thought of you, when I read this.[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020524/51/1lepj.html[/url]
THIS is the cold, hard truth.

DFAR,
You should drop the line about convenience at the airport.  It is inaccurate and getting old.  Lay it on somebody else who doesn't like standing in line for 6 hours just to get stripped multiple times by people who don't know what they are looking for.  I don't fly, and I haven't flown in over 5 years.
Your original statements, I believe, was to lay the blame on Bush himself, and to ignore all other elements and pre-11Sept considerations from the picture.
We explained the difference between general threats and specific threats, and why it is very hard to respond properly to a general threat unless you absolutely shut down everything.  Then, when you shut down everything, you HAVE to convince everybody that your actions were valid.  Because we were in a stupor about terrorism threats, nobody much believe that anything at all was going to happen.  Do you remember that much  of your pre-11Sept mindset?  If Bush had shut down everything in response to this general threat, everybody and their dog would have been calling for his head, and dubbing him "Chicken Little".  Even now, the Democrats are screaming high and loud about any profiling to catch the known threat - and it comes down to the fact that if Bush manages to offend the Muslim population, the Democrats gain power later this year, and basically GET THEIR WAY.  THAT is the political reality.  Anybody who denies this is a fool.
There is a lot to be desired, but try to avoid blaming it on the wrong person.
Do you remember the major subjects of concern during the election?  Whether or not Social Security was going to be privatized or not.  The USS Cole was attacked with just under a month remaining until the elections.  It did not become a major issue because nobody figured it was a real serious threat.  We The People could have petitioned our government to address our concerns about the threat of terrorism, but since we did not take it seriously, we did not.
How can we fairly expect the government to respond promptly to threats, when we don't believe they exist?  
To actually answer your question:
Profile at the airport all you want.  The terrorists will slip in somewhere else.  People were caught snooping at a reservoir in CT last week.  The FBI has issued general warnings about light aircraft and apartments.  Our whole infrastructure is wide open, and our enemies know it.  The threat is not at the airport - it is EVERYWHERE.  The infrastructure is still unguarded.
We will shed more blood, simply because there are so many juicy targets.  We spent 212 years building and developing the infrastructure, and the terrorists have all the time in the world to choose targets and patiently wait for complacency to creep back in.  Then, they will hit us where we DO NOT expect.  Where will it be?  Power grid?  Banking system? Cyber attack that manages to crash 911?
All of these things have been warned, but nobody pays attention.  The government responds to the concerns of the people.  If the people do not have the concerns, and do not voice concerns, the government will not respond.
I don't know how much plainer I can make it.

I submit this article for the Jury as well: [url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/23/123426.shtml[/url]

DFAR, this gets more fascinating as the story develops.
Seems the FAA warned the FBI AND the Air Carriers, beginning in 1998, that Osama and his boys would attempt hijackings.
Where is the failure?

DFAR, this?
[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=19&cid=676&u=/usatoday/20020528/ts_usatoday/4144449[/url]headroll.

DFAR:
[url]http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53796,00.html[/url]

If handled wrong, this is the official beginning of 1984.  How can we ensure it is handled right?  What are the signs that it is being handled the right way or the wrong way?

Reports about possible threats are received all the time.  What determines legitimacy?