Mr. Goldsmith has a J.D. and a couple years in the Bush administration 4 years ago - I am curious why this makes him qualified to speak about the current threat of terrorist attacks and the need for aggressive, non-constitutional counter-terrorism measures.

While Mr. Goldsmith asserts that these threats are pervasive and underplayed by the Bush administration, he does not present any evidence for those claims; and - unless he's currently an undercover CIA agent - there's no reason that he should have any that information anyways.

Mr. Goldsmith says: "Many people accuse the Bush administration of exaggerating the terror threat for political gain, but the truth is nearer the opposite: The Bush administration frets about homeland attacks more than it lets on."

I find this extremely hard to believe when currently 99.9% of the Bush administration's communications are about terrorism or security. Also, have you noticed that anytime a terrorist plot is thwarted, the administration publicizes the sh*t out of it?

Also, the comparison of Pearl Harbor to 9/11 is seriously misguided. Unlike in 1939, there was no "Terrorist Army" marching across the Middle East in 2001, conquering countries and committing widespread genocide.

...just some very obvious problems with this piece.