Depending on how much you follow the news, and, more importantly, how much you read between the lines. The answer may shock you.
His list does omit Iraq and Afgan incidents, but that depends on how you define a successful attack, and terrorists going after American troops is preferable to having them go after American children or civilians.
John Weidner has some thoughts on the Powerline data.
Terrorist attacks are done for a reason. The terrorists hope to get something out of them. The normal reaction in the West is to give them what they want. They want to sow fear, so we become fearful. They want publicity, so our "journalists" hasten to oblige. They want to demonstrate that we are not really dangerous, and so we lash out ineffectually. They want concessions, we run to the negotiating table. They want a break, we give them a truce.
It's like our collective mind has a little Jimmy Carter whispering in our ears.
2002 and 2003 was the first time we responded to terror attacks by doing something they REALLY don't want us to do.
This does mess with the romantic, radical chique that many have with terrorists. Some consider them to be men of action and that because of their passion there must be something to what they think, and that people that are against the US and "big business" can't all be bad.
The people that think this are the same useful idiots that thought that the Soviets were kinder, more just, and the wave of the future.
It always strikes me that people don't consider the impact on international events that a pullout in Iraq would have. Saying that any genocide, growth of terrorism, increase in American impotence, and emboldening of our enemies is Bush's fault...
does not magically make those things go away.
The problems would still be there, and have lasting implications.
Just ask Jimmy Carter.