[Mavdog]

I find it interesting that you assert that “Clinton’s law enforcement approach” didn’t work…while the Bush approach has NOT succeeded in apprehending Bin Laden either, apparently something that escapes you. Bush has failed to reach Bin Laden, and if a coordination with other countries (the deft use of diplomacy, something this admin is void of understanding) would facilitate getting Bin Laden who in their right mind would oppose such?

Al Queda hasn’t attacked American soil, but from your ramblings it is clear you must be unaware of their activity elsewhere. The battle is ongoing, and Al Queda has NOT been stopped nor defeated. I disagree strongly that ANY Administration, GWBush or BClinton, “casually accepted the murder of innocent US women and children” (BTW what happened to men?), That type of rhetoric is unfounded and distasteful. These attacks in other countries show that the war on terrorism is NOT a “flawless success”…just try telling that to the victims of violence in Tunisia, Indonesia, Bali, etc. I’m sure that they are who you call “fools” for not believing that the war against Al Queda has been so “flawless”, it’s just that their murdered family members show otherwise. They would ask what type of fool believes that the enemy has been defeated when they mourn their losses.

You assert that “the threat of military action” has produced results from “several other countries” involved in terrorism…with no example. Don’t bring up Libya, for that dialogue was begun in the final year of Clinton’s administration. Who else? Diplomacy and international relations are absent concepts with this administration.

We need the assistance of the world to combat this threat. A lone ranger approach isn’t the right way to accomplish the goal of defeating terrorism…and we can’t go around invading everybody under the pretext of fighting terrorism, lest we be seen as being guilty of the same offense as those we would be chasing.