AirJeff,

Both you and Merc are way out of bounds.

First, from the perspective of constitutional law, any president has the LEGAL right to declare martial law. So if any candidate for ANY office said this, he is declaring his lack of understanding of the Constitution.

However, Bush cannot declare martial law by pushing a button. It takes the cooperation of many, many officers in the military, police, judiciary, etc. These are thinking people and would not allow it UNLESS someone sets off a nuclear weapon in one of our cities... or some similar massive terrorist attack. You see, the same Constitution-based set of laws that give the president the power also provides checks. For example, the 23rd Ammendment defines a way for the sanity of the president to be questioned and control passed to others down a defined list. There ARE checks and balances.

Proof: Bush hasn't been able to do all the terrible things his critics predicted he'd do; Pelosi hasn't been able to do all the wonderful things she predicted she would do. The checks and balances assure that there is no "EASY BUTTON".... and thank goodness! (Or more correctly, thank our forefathers for their insight!)

Why are checks and balances (almost to the point of being a straightjacket) good? Because we humans prove over and over every day that most of the time, what we think is good turns out to be bad, and vis versa.

Second, Merc is wrong in thinking that we're so weak we couldn't absorb the lost of a city and still preserve our ideals.

HOWEVER:

The real threat from terrorists is NOT "just" the loss of one of our cities.

The real threat is that a very small minority can force much larger majorities to surrender power to them. AND I DON'T MEAN THAT WE WOULD SURRENDER OUR POWER TO GOVERN OURSELVES. The threat is that the 3rd world will be overtaken by petty dictators (religious and otherwise) and we'll sit by, ignoring the enslavement of most of mankind.

The real threat is that we'll sell out all these other people using as our excuse, "we let them decide for themselves."

If it was really the choice of the 3rd world to be radically Muslim, fine. But we very well know that it only takes one wolf to devour a heard of sheep.... and we'll all we sheep if we allow ourselves to be terrorized. In fact, the definition of "terrorized" is precisely that!

The answer is probably NOT to jump in at every point and defeat the terrorists ourselves, but rather to do what Patraeus is doing now: helping the local people to defend themselves from the terrorists.