Here's some news from before the attack:

U.S. Won't Invoke Law Against Israel- "The administration ought to be worried about Arab opinion," said Edward Walker, the State Department's top Middle East specialist at the end of the Clinton administration and the start of the Bush administration. "What the Israelis are doing is making us complicit in their activities.

"I don't want to say they are doing it on purpose, but this is exactly the way the Arab world sees it," said Walker, president of the Middle East Institute in Washington. "No matter how much we protest, as long as the arms control act sits there and we do nothing, they will hold us partially responsible."

Bush Retreats From U.S. Role as Peace Broker- "Though Secretary of State Colin L. Powell visited Israel and the West Bank during his Middle East tour two weeks ago, he indicated that those
stops were secondary to his main goal—pursuing a new policy to contain Iraq. After meeting the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Powell made clear the Bush administration would not be as ambitious as its predecessor in pressing the two sides to close a deal."

Freedom Is the Best Insurance Against Terrorism- "The unconditional support the United States has given Israel — as well as America's direct military or covert intervention in Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere — has prompted victims of those actions to extend their hostility to the United States. The results have included the Pan Am 103 and the World Trade Center bombings. In contrast, other nations seem untouched by terrorism — Switzerland, for example, a traditionally neutral country."

"The issue is whether the national government will use terrorism as a pretext for amassing power that is repugnant to the American tradition of individual liberty and limited state power. It might be easy for people to get caught up in the fear and anxiety associated with terrorism and to acquiesce in the administration's demand for more power. But that would be a betrayal of all that America once stood for and could stand for again. The terrorists would be the winners."

From today's news: "At a midday briefing, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said the administration would mount a "broad and sustained campaign'' in retaliation for the attacks. ``It's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism,'' he said." [my emphasis]

And Noam Chomsky's opinion: "The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities."