The war on terrorism is a misnomer: terrorism is a tactic, a means to diffent ends. The US must address these ends to achieve homeland security. We also have to get a lot smarter than we are.

Sent by Stephen Myers | 4:41 PM ET | 08-21-2007

Stupid does as stupid is.

Sent by gene jaleski | 5:11 PM ET | 08-21-2007

I wonder if the war on terror should include homeland security going after Stephen King?

Sent by dans | 5:57 PM ET | 08-21-2007

Terrorism is indeed a tactic, and, as such, no nation can ever truly reign victorious over terrorism. The fallacy is the belief that one can eliminate terrorism.

Behind the rhetoric is the truth: the US is waging war against terrorists. Such Pyrrhic victories.

Sent by John | 5:58 PM ET | 08-21-2007

We might do well to remember that it was the U.S. that armed, financed, and supported, the Taliban and al-Qauida in the first place, thanks, Jimmy Carter, when the Soviet Union sought to defend the secular government in Pakistan against these Islamic extremists.

Sent by prefer to be anonymous | 7:02 PM ET | 08-21-2007

The other night I went down to Blockbuster and rented Clint Eastwood's "Flags of our Fathers" and "Letter from Iwo Jima." Accounts of the battle for the island of Iwo Jima from the American and the Japanese perspectives.

The battle for Iwo Jima has always been to me a historical quirk in that it was fought a short five months before the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, ending the war. A lot of guys died on Iwo.

I was impressed with the directorial skills of Clint Eastwood. I said to myself, "No wonder John Wayne hated Clint Eastwood."

It's sometimes difficult to believe that John Wayne never served in the military, and that even though Ronald Reagan served in uniform, he never left Hollywood during World War Two, except to make movies in the desert with Errol Flynn.

But there were several Hollywood stars who did see combat. Two particular movie stars who saw actual combat were Aldo Ray, who served as a Navy frogman at Iwo, and Lee Marvin, who was a Marine.

Marvin was pretty badly wounded in action. Truth is, and this is delicate, Marvin was shot in the buttocks. His sciatic nerve was severed. He spent a year in rehab in a military hospital.

Lee Marvin is buried in Arlington Cemetery. Some years before his death, Marvin was a guest on the Johnny Carson "Tonight" Show. And the story goes that Carson broached the subject of Marvin's Purple Heart from his combat wound. Now, first off to set the record straight, Marvin was wounded on Saipan, not Iwo. But he was definitely wounded pretty bad. All the same, Marvin had a sense of humor about being shot in the rear, and this is the way the story goes about Marvin's chat with Johnny Carson:

Dialog From a Tonight Show circa '70's ... Johnny Carson ... His guest was Lee Marvin.

Johnny said, "Lee, I'll bet a lot of people are unaware that you were a Marine in the initial landing at Iwo Jima ... and that during the course of that action you earned the Navy Cross and were severely wounded."

And you know how Lee was ...

"Yeah, yeah ... I got shot square in the ass and they gave me the cross for securing a hot spot about halfway up Suribachi ... bad thing about getting shot up on a mountain is guys gettin' shot hauling you down. But Johnny, at Iwo I served under the bravest man I ever knew ... We both got the Cross the same day but what he did for his Cross made mine look cheap in comparison. The dumb bastard actually stood up on Red Beach and directed his troops to move forward and get the hell off the beach. That Sergeant and I have been life long friends.

"When they brought me off Suribachi we passed the Sergeant and he lit a smoke and passed it to me lying on my belly on the litter ..."Where'd they get you Lee?"... "Well Bob ... if you make it home before me, tell Mom to sell the outhouse.".....

"Johnny, I'm not lying ... Sergeant Keeshan was the bravest man I ever. Knew ...

Bob Keeshan ...You and the world know him as Captain Kangaroo."

Sent by fred call | 8:22 PM ET | 08-21-2007

My concern is that this government shows a remarkable lack of imagination and refuses to listen to those with valid opinions who disagree with the assessments of the "inner circle" (e.g. the Iraq Study Commission; the 9/11 Commission). How can it harm anyone to talk and listen to other points of view (e.g. Iran, North Korea, Hamas, Hizbollah). How can you be a leader in the world when nobody is willing to follow you? How can the rest of the world be wrong and only we are right? We have heard a great deal about the "War on Terrorism" but I have not heard a valid definition of "terrorism".

Sent by Jeffrey | 8:26 PM ET | 08-21-2007

Acts of terrorism can be traced to causes but who is looking for causation? It seem clear that anti-terrorism is now an industry that has a vested interested in not looking.

Sent by Mark | 12:25 AM ET | 08-22-2007

I'm sorry, Fred, but the story about Bob Keeshan is not true. He enlisted just before the atomic bomb was dropped.

http://www.snopes.com/military/marvin.asp

Sent by Jim Dodd | 8:49 AM ET | 08-22-2007

NO! Bush?cheney do not care. cheney's interest is in an imperialistic America and has sent the military to die for his ideology alone.

Wake up America!!

Sent by ml johnston | 9:04 AM ET | 08-22-2007

To answer the question: "Do you think reports like this make any difference to the people making the foreign policy decisions in the administration?"

NO. Their interest is only on making oil companies and defense contractors more money. War on terrorist is their ticket to big bucks for themselves and friends. Doubt that? Look at Cheney's wealth and money he gets from Halliburton. Bush family money from investments in war machines.

Sent by Randy (USN ret.) | 1:12 PM ET | 08-25-2007

Ps - In case anyone hasn't noticed the battle against terrorism is no longer exclusive to the US. Terrorism, ugh! It's a battle of minds, not bullets, and yes, it is a bumper sticker. It's a double-edged Jihad no matter what the interpretation against all freethinking, (wanna be) tolerant societies, and citizens of the world. Okay so I'm getting mushy with this citizen of the world bit, but hey, all of you take a break and look at this beautiful blue gem with Google Earth and then you'll start to get the picture - there's a lot at stake. We may have been the one's to give this twisted baby the stink it needed to be noticed, but the fault does not rest entirely on our excesses. This putrid soup has been long in the making; unfortunately (not the first) we brought it to a boil.

And that doesn't mean we should curb our excesses, which by the way, would be very much to the liking of our very own fundamentalist extremist. So it's not by a long shot we should even consider curbing this perceived decadence, not unless we prefer the dark ages to that of enlightenment. So what's new: isn't enlightenment always fraught with pain, mistakes, and sacrifice? Are not the real enemies of progress always ignorance? And did we not elect a leadership with a complete disregard for the most valued, respected, and feared document ever penned in the history of modern thought - our very own constitution. ?

Sent by george gekas | 8:11 PM ET | 08-25-2007

As someone with advanced degrees in the field, watching the hiring of new "experts," my advice is to hire analysts with experience in the area, instead of assuming that knowledge of the area equals terrorist sympathies. What American could sympathize with the Taliban? Come on, we were all here on 9/11. We need to start hiring people who see what is there, instead of those who look for what they are told to find.

Sent by horrified observer | 9:55 AM ET | 08-26-2007

No. Bush is obsessed with being right, an alcoholic who can't accept failure. He's a fool who mixes up history and language and is leading America down an awful road, one that will take decades to fix.

Sent by Rod Vickery | 2:44 PM ET | 08-26-2007