John H. wrote:
I made no comments about deficit.

Really? Then what did you mean by:



John H. wrote:
The other approach, taking the battle to them, seems to be the only
*feasible* method of fighting terrorism.
... Of course, this won't greatly
increase the size of the government.

???

Do you think that vastly increased expenditures are somehow *not*
connected with increased gov't size?


Do you not consider the tremendously increased bureaucracy 'helping' the
gov't of Iraq, and supporting the right-sized Army occupying Iraq, as an
increase in the size of the gov't?

The facts are that President Bush and the current Congress has vastly
increased the size of the gov't, despite their principles.


My comments had to do with approaches to combating terrorism. If the decision is
made to protect our ports by inspecting every container, ship, boat, kayak,
inner tube, etc, then the Coast Guard will needs lots more money. There will be
no end to the amount of money they will need to do all of that, and it will
still not be terrorist-proof.

OTOH right now, there is almost *no* effective port security. It would
be simplicity itself to ship a WMD in an unmarked cargo container. I
guess since we can't possibly make the ports & the borders absolutely
100% iron-clad and totally impervious, then there is zero point in
trying to improve port & border security by enough to at least make it
more difficult to tote in WMDs?




We *cannot* protect everything in this country from terrorists.


You're right. But your illogical suggestion that it would be a waste of
time & money to improve border security is not very smart.

Or maybe you think we just should invade yet another oil-bearing country
that has no connection with terrorism?

DSK