>The "war on drugs" and "the war on cancer" haven't prompted any President to assume the powers that a declaration of war has the current president grabbing with the "war on terror".

The "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty" have had enourmous impacts. I would suggest that both have expanded the power of the government beyond what the "war on terror" has.

>It's pretty clear that no one in the Congress felt that the Administration would take the 'liberties' they have with the citizens' liberty.

I don't feel that my liberties have been infringed in the least (except when trying to get past security in the damned airport). I must be an exception.

>The U.S. has "arrangements" with countries when it comes to the "war on drugs". Other countries are already deeply immersed in the "war on terror" and trade information freely with the U.S. Why can't the U.S. use "arrangements" for the "war on terror"?... And why isn't that enough?

Drug law enforcement may involve a lot of the same activities as tracking terrorists, but they are two different targets, involving two different profiles of people, separate government agencies, different theatres of operation, and so forth. Plus there's the military aspects of the "war on terror".

>Their chances of winning are NIL and you very well know it. No one is 'doing nothing about it'. Suppose that 9/11 had obliterated the White House and the Capitol while every single official was inside. Do you think the Islamic Fundamentalists would have walked in and declared a Sharia state?

A win for the fundamentalists means something completely different than a win for us. No, I don't expect they could walk in and take over here, even if DC was obliterated. But remember, these people have a long view on things. The Caliphate will be reestablished one country, or even one province, at a time.

>Yes, it could. But Somalia was already a very special case in that it had no government for several years. From what I've heard maybe Haiti comes close, but I can't think of another.

Nigeria has a rather restless Islamic population, and Indonesia does as well. If either of them turn, we have a big problem.

>Here, in the aftermath of the plot involving 17+ people to blow up places, it seems that mosques have gone to extra effort to purge themselves of possible radicals. I'd guess the same is happening in the U.K. and Spain and Morrocco and elsewhere.

You guess? You better hope. But from what I hear, that isn't the case. The flap over the Mohammed cartoons seems to prove otherwise.

>In other words, increased intelligence/police activity AND more involvement by the non-radicals in the Muslim community looks to be all that's required for now.

Uhhh...no, I think it is going to take a little more work than that. The object is to stop these nuts BEFORE they act. One person with one bomb - think Timothy McVeigh - can cause a lot of damage.

>Just consider for a moment that continued abridgement of your right ultimately means that the Islamic Fundamentalists "win".

What abridgement of my rights? What rights of yours have been abridged lately?

>>Define "U.S. fundamentalists". Christian fundamentalists?
>
>I guess the best I could categorize is neo-con minded folk. They don't like the way either the U.S. or the world has been evolving over the last 50+ years and want to "fix" it.

I think you are making a bigger boggeyman out of "neo-cons" than need be.

One of the functions of government is security, and this entails not only current issues but anticipating future threats as well. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the threat to the US was no longer a large opponent, but smaller countries with radical elements. This was driven home by the events of 9/11, and the administration is doing what it thinks needs to be done. Disagree with the methods all you want, but this doesn't translate into some nefarious plot to "fix" the world. Personally, I agree with the concept of pre-emptive action, which is central to the Bush Doctrine. I'd much rather we fight the bastiges on their own turf.