hence, bush is a threat to freedom
Technically, Bush can neither give nor take away freedom (except perhaps through pardons.) Therefore, Bush is no direct threat to freedom. He can, however, sign and vigorously enforce the freedom-eroding measures coming out of Congress. And this is neither Republican nor Democrat; Congress has been eroding our freedoms for one hundred years or more.
Getting Bush out of office won't stop the erosion process. Killing all the terrorists won't, either.
I don't have much patience for talk radio anymore. You have neo-cons on the right who pound their chests, cheer the War on Shadows, and march lock-step towards fascism. There are sand-packers on the left who whine about any act carried out by a Republican administration and who yearn for a socialist "paradise." Both are statists of different stripes.
Instead of reading people like Malkin, maybe try a little Ron Paul or Robert Pape.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr071405.htm
...
Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.
...
The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."
