I agree with Reg here, mostly. I think it would not have been considered preemptive nor would have caused mostly worldwide condemnation had the US gone after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Although, if I remember correctly, hadn't the Taliban just demolished some Buddha statues? I'm sure that would have played in the context at the time...so maybe it would have looked like we were punishing them for that. So...a more concerted effort against Bin Laden based on the Cole findings would probably have flown. A strike straight at Afghanistan and the Taliban...probably not...unless they defended Bin Laden with their military.

And while we're tossing around hypotheticals...Pat's boy orielly said the other day that what we're doing in Iraq is the right thing to do...but only if it doesn't drag on. I'm paraphrasing there...but what the hell does that mean? Since when does the "right thing to do" have a time limit?

Dan