I wasn't saying that terrorism wasn't important, just that it I don't think it's importance is in proportion with the attention and money that is being spent on it. There are many other more critical issues.

Certainly waiting for an attack isn't a sensible course of action, but (IMO) neither is striking out harshly against an almost invisible enemy, and hitting many innocent people in the process.

International cooperation and a unity of purpose are critical for there to be any hope of minimizing the threat of terrorism (I think eliminating it, at least in this century, is impossible). Going it alone is doomed to failure, and may in fact actually increase the threat.

Calling former and potential future allies an "axis of weasels" is counterproductive. Some way of working with other nations has to be worked out, but the divergence between the US and much of the rest of the world regarding "liberalism" will make this very difficult.

In many ways, the growth of religious fundamentalism in the US means that it has more in common with Islamic fundamentalists than with many other western countries.

Can Bush be a born-again world diplomat? I hope so, but I don't think so.