Funny how terrorism is just a political weapon to the Democrats.

The reality of terror as a weapon doesn't seem to matter. But the victims in Israel, Beslan, Iraq, New York, D.C., India, Pakistan, etc. are real enough.

But there aren't enough of them to matter much anymore.

Even a thousand a year is too many. The killers are too cozy - we need to scare them, starve them, and garotte them, one by one (or a hundred by a hundred, if possible). It's not part of our history to have the military act that way, but it is certainly part of our history that justice is taken to the bad guys.

A thousand a year is too trivial for democracies to respond.

I'm sure she'd overreact the way Bill overreacted to the '93 WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the "Blackhawk down" incident, the embassy bombings, . . . .

Too trivial? Are you defining the Dane-geld?

No matter where the next attack is (60 dead in London, 100 dead in Paris, 200 dead in Chicago, 500 dead in Rome), the appropriate response would be to kill a wing of the Saudi royal family, take out the refinery in Iran, kill Assad and the Syrian Ba'athists, kill a few hundred Pakistani imams and mullahs, and kill Nasrallah. Give no quarter. Let the enemy know they aren't in Sept. 10 anymore.

Then step back and watch. The jailhouse will sort some things out.

Aspirin factories beware!

Bill bombed Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan unilaterally.

It's already sorting. A bombing to make you feel better won't do anything meaningful.

Yes, he bombed - but he didn't kill anybody. There was no retribution, and certainly no justice. The humor in Steve's comment is all too revealing.

Hillary will be tempted to act just like LBJ. Heaven help her McNamara.

Yes, Bill was quick to react. He apologized for being in the way of their bombs.

erp:

very good.

A "realist" will accept incidents of terror, even grotesque ones (Beslan, 9/11, Bali) because the alternative is too difficult, and the prospect of upsetting the Saudis is too great. I didn't know OJ was a realist.

George Bush has taken a different tack (at least sometimes). He and Cheney won't accept another terror attack on the homeland. So far, their vigilance has been effective. Another attack is inevitable, but the "realist" is resigned to it. He will shrug, and leave even easy targets alone.

A wiser course is to go to the swamp and deal with the larvae. We have done some of that (in Afghanistan & Pakistan, for example), but not enough. The Saudis have to feel it - a bomb in London should mean a bomb in Riyadh. The terrorists must live as though every breath is their last. Their isn't much 'deterrence' in the WOT, but we can deter future potential terrorists with a life on the run, never knowing if the knife will slit their throats this very night.

A thousand a year is too trivial for democracies to respond.

Then shouldn't we just designate parts of our country as terrorist free-fire zones where our laws for even things like murder don't apply? If so, then I nominate New Hampshire, as it's a useless little area no one will miss.

George Bush wisely used 9-11 as just a pretext for regime changes that had little to do with the attacks.

The whole country is terrorist free except for every six years or so.

Yes, the Bush/Cheney response has been wise. Much better than anything most all other D.C. jellyfish would have done.

But if there are more large attacks around the world, it would be better for a President to say nothing than to wag his finger the way Clinton did, with no subsequent action. We should be past that stage now, I hope.

Sudan stopped being a problem thanks to the bombings.

Not if you are from Darfur, or just about anywhere in the middle south.

Civil war isn't terrorism.

Genocide isn't civil war.

It is civil war par excellence.