The Fire: Do you think terrorism in Bali or London is an unrelated threat to the US?

crackhole: We already had the intelligence capabilities before 9/11, but the various agencies refuse to cooperate

The Fire: I think that's an oversimplication of the problem. Although this is unrelated to intelligence, did you know that on September 11, there were only about a dozen jets spread across the US ready to defend our borders?

Or, in another bit of irony, NORAD (on 9/11) was running a simulation on a potential threat...of Russian bombers coming over the North Pole?

The problem the intelligence agencies have, at least in the bigger picture, is that they failed to adapt to a new threat once the Soviet Union collapsed. These are agencies which were designed for a completely different purpose and, between '91 and '01, they couldn't find a purpose.

Finally, though, the threat has become more clear and these agencies can be used appropriately.

crackhole: then you and I are the enemy in this war as well

The Fire: The unfortunate reality is that the enemy is among us.

I didn't mean to convey that Truman, Ike, etc. have all suspended the Constitution (though I don't think they would disagree with certain foreign policies of today) but, unfortunately, that's how it came out.

I painted too broad of a scope on this one, especially in order to justify my earlier statement of "Every administration, in a time of serious conflict, has done it" when discussing domestic policy.

The Fire: I agree but I also disagree. You're right, the "war on terror" could end up like the "war on drugs," decades (and billions) later there's still really nothing to show for progress.

The "war on terror" can have tangible goals, if the American citizen base is willing to set them.

There are plenty of States which allow terrorist organizations to organize and proliferate. The first place I would start with is Iran and work my way down the list. Eventually, the rest will get the picture.

Islamic radicalism cannot be allowed to preveil. We have waited too long to deal with it in an aggressive, Total Warfare-manner (and, for those who need definitions, we still have not adopted a Total Warfare strategy).

Had Reagan come down hard after the Beirut bombing, much of this could have probably been avoided. The same for the first President Bush after Desert Storm (by not marching straight to Baghdad) and President Clinton after the '93 WTC and the USS Cole.

We'll see whether this president has the heavy hand necessary. I don't think he does but he might.

9/11 was just what the doctor ordered for Bush, Cheney, et al. They got to impose menacing - draconian anti-freedom legislation (and pass it off as a security measure.) They were able to launch a war based on false and fraudulent premises for the benefit of the war, and "energy" (read oil) industries (both of which they and their cronies are heavily invested in).