While terrorism strikes countries around the world, it has not touched US shores since 9/11, thanks to President Bush, but he gets as much respect for his success in this corner as Rodney Dangerfield did in Caddy Shack.

Bush called the attack on the United States a  ‘war on terrorism’, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan because they allegedly had ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and were harboring terrorists and since all of this activity the office of the President amassed powers, which heretofore it did not have.

We have often laid the cause of 9/11 in this column at the doorstep of President Clinton, for after all it was his administration that erred by omission, failing to take the appropriate action following the bombing of the US Embassy in Nairobi, the attack on the USS Cole and coming up short to get Osama bin Laden.

President Bush, is much like Rodney Dangerfield for he didn’t come into office with the greatest of mandates and most of his decisions, in particular the Iraq War, came under severe criticism by most, and now as he leaves office the country faces the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and you can bet historians will lay the cause at his doorstep.

Interestingly enough he doesn’t even get credit for keeping Americans safe since 9/11.  The press would rather criticise him instead for accumulating power under the guise of the ‘war on terror’.   His detention of the enemy, some of which were captured in other sovereign nations, in Guantanamo has come under fire as his broad powers of wiretapping.

However, in the past 60 hours we saw the carnage that took place in Mumbai India where some 200 people lost their lives, including 6 Americans, and scores of others injured at the hand of terrorists.  One surviving terrorist said the plan was to kill 5,000.

So if this is not a war, what is it?  Traditional wars have always had boundaries.  Terrorism has no boundries.  Some would like to think it should be treated as criminal action, for terrorism could go on for generations and is it fair under our justice system to hold terrorists without a trial?

Others think that the definition of terrorism and how to deal with it will result in some sort of a hybrid.

Nevertheless, President Bush treated it as a war, which is what I think it is by the mere actions taken by the terrorists and they should be treated as war criminals under the Geneva Convention.  Although the boundaries are amorphous to some, I would define them as global.

The bottom line here is the safety of the people.  President Bush insured the safety of the American people by defining terrorism as a ‘war’ and for this he should be lauded and applauded for his actions.

Let us hope incoming President Barack Obama, who wants to have tea with the President of Iran, has his priorities in order and realizes his foremost duty is to protect the American people.