Who has asserted that? So far as I know, no one has. The populace and the government stuck its head in the sand about terrorism during the 80s and 90s because it was something that happened "over there", and as a result groups like Al Qaeda grew stronger and ratcheted up the level of their attacks until they hit us over here and we finally gave them the attention they are so obviously due. So no, we weren't under any "onslaught," but we were being attacked (Remember bin Laden declared "war" on us well before 9/11). And the attacks, for whatever reason, have now stopped (I don't consider terrorism in Iraq as the same sort of terrorism we're talking here). Personally, I'm inclined to say the attacks stopped because of the obvious: We're paying more attention to terrorists and we've built and directed a very large security apparatus to foil terrorists. That apparatus has foiled numerous plots and continues to do so, as last week illustrated. What would you have us do? Try to go back to a pre-9/11 existence? As I wrote in a previous post, I don't think that's entirely the case, but Iraq has become the center of Islamic jihad, and I can't help but think that does tend to attract a lot of the loons who otherwise might be licking their chops and staring at American landmarks. I think that's your opinion. At least, it's not one I've heard annunciated from official channels anyway. That's a totally different conflict with totally different players. In other words, you're comparing apples and oranges. It has, so far as the homeland is concerned... I honestly don't see any justification for these claims you're making for Americans. Who thinks this way, and where are they expressing it?