There must be some kind of sensible center to this hawk/dove thing you've got going on, Bartcop buddy.
I think just about everybody can agree on the following points:

1. September 11th was an atrocity. All who had anything to do with the crime must be brought to justice.
Civilization demands an all-out effort to capture them, or, if that isn't possible, to kill them. Anger is natural;
revenge is a choice. We have an obligation to respond from the best in us, not the worst. And, we might disagree
on the punishment of those we capture. But we can all agree that their activities must be completely neutralized.

2. Those who were responsible for 911 have no right to be heard,
are not spokespeople for any legitimate cause, but rather are just criminals.

3. Military action is regrettably necessary, while minimizing civilian deaths,
lest we become the indiscriminate terrorists we seek to neutralize.

4. Bush is only doing what is expected, and his popularity figures are just a patriotic gesture,
not a personal endorsement of him. He is still the worst president in memory, and we must spare
no effort to oust him. In the meantime, we must fight to retain our civil liberties against the
surveillance state advocated by Ashcroft.

5. Our relations with Arab states promote violence and are short-sighted, exploitative, incongruent with
our values, and too beholden to big oil. We must focus on our shortcomings in foreign policy, especially
toward Israel and Iraq.  We must take a hard look at why bin Laden is admired by too many moderate
Muslims, and take away his propaganda advantage by good acts, such as the food relief to the Afghans.

I like you, support our military. Can you join me in my hopes and efforts to correct the wrongs that have made
this military intervention necessary? That is, whether they are the wrongs of bin Laden, or our own complacency,
such as letting Exxon/Mobil/Halliburton/Enron dictate our energy and Middle East policy?

I'll keep reading even if we disagree.
Wouldn't it be boring if we were all alike?

Scott
 

Scott, I see nothing to argue with there.

There are two questions that answers to which continue to escape me.

1. Why do people explode when I use the term "dove?"
     If someone calls me a "hawk," I take that to mean I'm more willing to use military force than they are.
     It follows then, that a person less willing to use the military is a dove by comparison.
     Where's the personal slur these people are receiving?

2. The same people who say we must try to understand the anger of the hijackers
    are willing to come at me with volcanic rage for wanting to fight back.
    Why isn't most of that rage directed at the murderers?
 

 I think we should remember the WTC Syndrome.
 Everybody's been on edge for 6-7 weeks now.
 And to the people who wrote to say WTC Syndrome was
 my half-assed, lame excuse for being easily set off - I forgive you.