I am bothered that it was not done on 9-12-2001. I am also bothered by the fact that it was not done on 9-12-2000, or 99, or 98 etc.  Osama Bin Laden had declared war on the United States already, and we should have been moving on it then.

Here's a question for the peanut gallery.  How many wealthy, well armed folks out there who have publicly declared war on the US do we move on every year?  So if some guy in Argentina that lives in the mountains, has an army of 50 armed guards, renounces American Empiralism and says he wants to kill americans, will we commit?  Not until he blows up a ship, two embassy's, a military dormatory, the pentagon, two really big buildings filled with civie's, 4 airliners and a perfectly good field.

It takes a house to drop on us?  Nahttp://www...not really. 

But a common practice in many settings is to go from a "least restrictive" practice to a "most restrictive" practice. 

It looks like election year posturing...and it just may be, but I'll bet it's more an issue of being somewhat conservative with our troops going after one guy while we've got a big ol war on TERRORISM going on.  Whether I agree with the politics of the situation, even me, a guy who's bad at RISK and Military Shoot-em-up Video games knows not to committ a bunch of men and machine after one guy at first.  OF course, if he's slippery enough to evade my small force, I send a bigger force.  So, I'm not convinced that it's such a bad thing. 

PRH