There never has been. Its just a slogan the Bushies have used to intimidate their opponents and greatly overreach their powers. (Tyrants they used to call them).

The only real, legit sensible and just objective since 9/11 has been bringing Osama Bin laden and his henchmen to justice. The one thing Bush and his henchmen have been sure to avoid. Without their boogieman they can't have their fake war.

The rest is just a waste of lives and treasure pursuing a lie invented by the Bush/Cheney hanta.

There is no reason to be in Iraq, there never has been. There is only one reason to be in Afghanistan... bringing Bin laden to justice.

It takes two to tango and with Bush and his right wing henchmen out of power (and hopefully in jail) the fake Islamic/Christian "they hate us because of our freedom" lie will be rejected with the ridicule it deserves.

Obama is absolutely correct to state that we will go after Bin laden when the opportunity presents itself. Even after eight years of corruption, distraction and incompetence from Bush Bin laden is still free and this nightmare cannot end until he is dealt with.

I'm not sure what or who the Taliban 2008 is without Al-Qaeda.

Making the two joined at the helped rationalize an invasion and coup in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Karzai's regieme has failed to deliver -- it is overextended, underfunded, apparently corrupt and/or badly manned and seems to have been unable to cope with a resultant resurgence of the warlords and the Taliban (although it may be that Karzai enlisted the Warlords, shades of the Sunni tribeleaders in Iraq, only to gradually lose their support, I'm unclear.)

I read of a resurgence of the Taliban and cannot discern if this is due to a Taliban "reign of terror" in which peasants shelter tyrants having no alternative or if again (as they came to power initially) the Taliban represents a choice, possibly better and again some protection from the ruthless self-interested warlords.

America and Americans appear to find "islamic fundamentalism" generically distasteful, threatening, and unwelcome even when it may represent a popular alternative locally. Karzai's star in all circles seem to be waning -- which may or may not be "fair" - but wWhat will we do if he continues to fail and the Taliban seize the day, rally allies, etc.

Will I be shouting "Afghanistan for the Afghans!" at the next antiwar rally?

I greatly suspect that Sen. Obama's comments on military action upon receiving "high-level intelligence" on Osama bin Laden's whereabouts are mainly for political consumption back home. Not that the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater would not be his main focus -- he's been clear about that for some time -- but what action he takes is likely to be more supple than has traditionally been American policy (particularly contrasting with the Bush Administration's shoot-before-asking approach).

It would probably be best for all concerned if Sen. Obama didn't rattle sabers in that direction, especially when it comes to a question of the Pakistani sovereignty (especially in the isolated North West region), but he's approaching the heart of an election in which U.S. politicians who appear to "soft" allow the fear card to be played against them. That Sen. Obama has yet to find the best tone for his policy is clear -- it is in this regard where his inexperience shows most greatly -- but he promises overall a more nuanced policy.