"The biggest threat we face today," [Vice President Cheney] said in Pennsylvania," is that one of these terror cells is organizing in the middle of one of our cities with a nuclear weapon, and the prospect that the next time they launch an attack against the U.S. it won't be just a few thousand lives. It may be a few hundred thousand."

Vice President Cheney - September 24, 2004

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

Vice President Cheney - September 7, 2004

I don't necessarily agree that the only way to fight terrorism is through law enforcement; for example I, along with just about everybody I know, was fully behind the invasion of Afghanistan. However, invading foreign countries is a long long way to military action on American soil. Just what would be the military response if we do find out that a terrorist network has a nuclear bomb in the middle of an American city? Do you strike the home of the terrorist, or do you strike the cell before they have a chance to detonate their bomb? Say you run with the intelligence, and execute a military strike only to find out that there was no bomb on the premises, or even worse, that there were innocent bystanders in the way.

This is the danger in thinking that the only possible response to terrorism is martial. Of course, the reality of the situation is more likely that Cheney doesn't really believe that a civil (i.e. law enforcement) approach to terrorism is always wrong, just that its a convenient wedge to use against Senator Kerry who tends to inject more nuance into his public persona.

Okay, so its been a while since I've had a political post. But current world events have gotten me increasingly concerned. And no, this has nothing to do with Iraq. I'm talking about Russia's current slide into a dictatorship.

The Bush administrations response?

"This is a domestic matter for the Russian people,'' said a White House official who asked to remain anonymous. "It is important for Russia to continue along the pathway of democracy and economic reform.''

Naturally, there have been other responses from the administration:

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday, said Putin's planned changes were "pulling back on some of the democratic reforms". He pledged to raise his concerns with the Russian leadership.

It remains to be seen whether or not Powell's concerns will actually get raised, or listened to. Most of the European community is outraged about this, but we know how much good that will do them without the full support of the U.S. Can we all agree yet that unilateralism has opened the door to some particularly bad actors?