I have to agree that both Pete and troll have ideas that would be far more effective than the "kill 'em all and sort it out later" approach. Kat, I am slightly encouraged though that Bush, while still holding on to the retaliation with brute force idea, is at least making some good noises toward forming coalitions and pressuring supportive governments........It's a start.

What I think that Colin Powell may understand and is seemingly trying to transmit to Bush, is that a war on terrorism is a marathon and not a sprint. Any fighter knows that the way to win is to weaken your opponent's body with great body punches and not by only shots to the head. Even Ali, the greatest headshot artist of all, weakened his opponents in body first by either dancing or the infamous "Rope-A-Dope."

I hear members of Congress and the cabinet makong the right sounds in that direction. They biggest job may be in selling the American people that a retaliatory "blast" will be far less effective than a campaign against the heart of the beast.

There was talk on another thread about Truman and the bomb. It's true that one of his reasons for using it was that he believed it would result in fewer American (and Japanese) soldiers killed. But another was that he knew the US citizens would likely react badly to the knowledge that he could have ended the war with the bomb and didn't. The point here is that all political animals always have that political interest in mind even in the worst of times. I hope that enough time will pass that Bush will get the message that what we really want is an end to terrorism and not just revenge........and I hope the American citizens will see the benefit fo the marathon.

Spaw