I should have written:

"Sorry, my little Gummibärchen, you're a target, even if you keep the troops home and close down the 'giant aircraft carrier with sausages'."

Maybe now that line will make more sense.

@Joerg: It almost sounds like you are suggesting that the nightmare is real and therefore, US policy should become more strict.

But in fact I think you are keeping your original position, which (if I understand it right) is that the Bush administration is hypocritical in favoring business over security. Maybe you are also suggesting they use the fear of terrorism to make people afraid, but the fact that they don't let it interfere with commerce somehow proves they aren't seriously worried about it and are only using the fear for their own, evil plans?

But what policy would you suggest for the Bush administration? If they require visas for all Europeans, they will be denounced as paranoid. Furthermore, in my opinion, requiring visas would further weaken the trans-Atlantic relationship, which is what the jihadis want. But, if they keep the current policy, they are denounced as hypocrites.

It seems they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

If this is what you are saying, it is frustrating. This sort of thinking is why some on this side of the Atlantic sometimes loose their temper and accuse Europeans of being sympathetic with jihadis, since the jihadis' tactic is also to force us into lose-lose dilemmas.

Of course, once people on this side of the Atlantic regain their temper, they realize this is an unfair criticism of the Europeans. Still, it would be nice if European complaint was more constructive and included a proposed solution.

Personally, I think this visa question is one of the rare times when our Homeland Security policy is striking the correct balance between security and openness. The correct response to terrorism attempts is to keep the policy in place and remind everyone that we really need to make the policy work, since the alternatives are worse. Hence the call for more efforts to combat home-grown jihadis, since without them the visa question would be moot.

...and nomad = Frenchie, if I remember right.

Thanks for the cartoon.

The gal with the lovely, pink hair is angry because, after all the paperwork and delays, she can't get the transit visa because she has un délit (similar to a misdemeanor in the US system). Also I think there are délits, and then there are délits graves which are closer to crimes than misdemeanors.

We are not told which type of délits she did, but I wonder if the comic is pointing out a cultural difference between the US and France?

Si elle ait la rage and set fire to a car, or something, in the US this is considered a crime (arson). We love our cars, and besides, someone could get seriously hurt, the fire could spread, etc. In France, if I understand correctly, this would be treated as un délit (maybe not even un délit grave?), since it is only a crime against property and no-one is supposed to get very excited about such bourgeoisie things.

If on the other hand she simply got caught making an illegal download, or something, of course it is absurd that she doesn't get a transit visa.

She could probably find a more direct flight to Tahiti on her national carrier, but of course that would cost more...

Instead, she imagines burning our flag...which is still not even a misdemeanor in the US (as long as you have the permission of the flag owner). If she had burned our flag instead of a French car, then there would be no problem getting her US transit visa!

So you see we are not unreasonable.

As I've written elsewhere, our State Department is badly in need of reform. I have no doubt the visa process lets people through that should be stopped, and stops people who should be let through, and is more complicated than necessary, and is absurd in other ways.