What is happening in the war on terror is that, in cases where police actions work, police action is being used. In cases where we are dealing with rogue nations, military action is being used.

Europe and other nations, for example, are cooperating in dealing with terror suspects on its own soil, and tracking financial movements of terrorist organizations. A lot of successful police work has been done, and there has been a lot of success in many countries in choking off terrorist funds. It just doesn't make the headlines much, and those fighting the battle of the eyeshades like it that way. Nobody is bombing banks, and nobody is suggesting it.

In places like Afghanistan and Iraq, military action is being used, although police actions are beginning to work their way into place as each nation develops a security force hostile to the terrorists.

There are holes in this net, including Syria and Iran, but you do what you can.

You make a good point that one OR the other doesn't give you what you need, but there are way too many liberals who completely discarded the military approach. Even for Afghanistan, although you won't find as many willing to admit that now as you could find in October of 2001.

I would rather they killed Osama. There are a number of reasons for this. First, there are WAY too many people who will leap to his defense in a legal situation, defending and supporting him. Look at what's happening with Saddam. Wait until he gets to trial, and see what comes out of the woodwork. Before too long, he's going to be another Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Second, a live leader still has the potential to be a future leader. He could be rescued, escape, or given the current ridiculous climate, released.

Nobody in old South Africa would have bet on Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa (note: this does not suggest that the Mandela and bin Laden have anything in common other than to illustrate the potential for an imprisoned person to return to power).

Now, for some politics. You can skip this if you like.

Although it's an article of faith on the left that Bush HAS to be screwing up everything he touches, in point of fact in many areas some damn good work has been done against terrorism since 9/11. What a lot of people don't want to admit is that since 9/11, Bush has been doing as good a job, mistakes and all, as anyone else would have given the same information and circumstances. When Kerry debated the issue, it was obvious that his solutions were pretty much the same as Bush's. He was just trying to pretend that Bush wasn't doing it.