We have no reason to believe that Bush has protected us from attack.  There is no cause and effect relationship you can demonstrate showing this.  Just as plausible is that increased security of our airports and borders - which any president would have ordered after Sept 11, 2001, was more responsible than intelligence reorganization.  We also know that Al-Queda was more than happy to pour its efforts into Iraq where they felt they were defeating and embarrassing us.

I'm sure there will be more attacks.  They are simply inevitable.  Dont't be terrorized; if you aren't living in terror, terrorism loses its meaning.

Lastly, we are much more likely to have a violent domestic terrorism incident rather than a foreign inspired one.  The rise of racist, anti-semitic, and white-supremacy groups seems to have gone in to hyperdrive since Obama's election.

Ultimately, we'll have to see how effective Obama will be in protecting America from another terrorist attack. Bush has been successful for over 7 years. I hope Obama's team can match/exceed that record, but some of his proposals sound like they might weaken our Intel. Time will tell.

"For instance, the intelligence czar's office has made it clear that it expects foreign intelligence services, which traditionally have established direct relationships with American agencies like CIA, FBI or NSA, to check in with its officials before conducting significant business with their traditional U.S. counterparts. "

Well there's a smart idea.  While we're at it, let's require all informants to undergo security checks before they're allowed to give us intelligence.  This is bureaucracy at its worst.  Leave the agencies to do they're jobs.  A policy as idiotic as this is bound to harm our intelligence gathering ability.

On a side note, what ever happened to talk about Chuck Hagel for CIA?  I'm disappointed not to see his name anymore.  Who better than a man who sacrificed his career to do the right thing and not toe the party line to send a message that CIA will no longer be a "political" organization?  This is a man who can bring people together and restore trust in our intelligence agencies.

Blair should be rejected National Director of Intelligence because of his role in the East Timor crisis of 1999. He undermined the Clinton administration's belated efforts to support human rights and self-determination in the Indonesian-occupied territory.  He also opposed congressional efforts to condition military assistance on human rights accountability and improvements. By downplaying human rights concerns, he essentially gave a go ahead to the Indonesian military to violate human rights. see <a href="http://etan.org/news/2008/12blair.htm">here</a> for the details.