Most of us who post here are commited to one or other side of politics so no one is likely to be (or even want to be) enlightened.
The most useful function of these sort of topics is to have bit of a laugh at others and yourself,for pretending you have an answer to the problem. That can be good therapy in itself.
My experience of things is that judgements made quickly are generally proved to be wrong in a clearer assessment further down the road.
My own view, for what it's worth, is that Howard is very much at home with Bush because they share a similar world view. The tactic used here is to attack a persons character in an endeavour to weaken that person's standing in the eyes of others.
It would not be hard on the evidence to make a very strong case for Howard's resoluteness on matters he sees as important and flexibilty on others that he does not see as so important.
As far as being frightened of the terrorists and the fear that Howard is stirring up the terrorists to do us even more harm,that I believe is an unwarranted fear and an unlikely outcome.
It seems to me it is important to know what motivates the terrorists (politics and/or religion) so you know how to deal with them. My reading of history (Malaysia etc.) is that strong opposition both militarily and politically has been successful in reducing the power of terrorists and I see no reason why the line being taken by Bush and others is not the better approach.
Even the UN has the same objective as the US in containing terrorism. Others think that the US has a broader policy objective. That may or may not be true but should not inhibit the war on terrorism.
