Follow-up to Iraq post

I just want to point out an excellent editorial by the Washington Post that points out some of the fundamental problems with Bush's plan to deal with terrorists, although I myself do not quite agree with the Post and their agreement with Bush about the exact nature of the threat posed by Islamic terrorists. They view the terrorists as totalitarian threats to take over the world (to be fair, the Post only says that it mostly agrees with Bush). That's a bit hyperbolic, as we certainly don't face a threat by bin Laden marching on Washington and taking over the country. In fact, the whole point of terrorism is that one side lacks the military means to accomplish anything even close to that and thus resorts to terrorist actions. This isn't to say that the threat of terrorism isn't real or dangerous, but let's face it, it doesn't exactly have the military power or the substantial backing that Nazism and Communism had.