the peace table cowed and bent on reform.

And then they could be treated like Japan and Germany, and we could go about the serious business of helping them, as we did our other former adversaries, to build their economies and to establish or re-establish democratic institutions.

But this may not take place for generations, and we have to regard our leadership as fundamentally correct

On a news program the other day, Vice President Cheney was asked about Iraq and he made a sensational statement.

Despite the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction found, and the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was illusory, he’d still do the same thing over again and invade.

Iraq is a symbol of the administration’s commitment to taking the war to the terrorists, occasionally to places they aren’t located, even if it means we’ll spawn a new generation of them where they weren’t, to begin with.

Forget about his flawed reasoning, I say, and focus on the objective: Reducing the terrorist threat so it becomes at least somewhat manageable.

I’m sure the great majority of Americans support this goal, especially during a time when Pope Benedict is being burned in effigy and threatened with assasination, and terrorist leaders are speaking about converting infidels everywhere to Islam, under threat of the sword.

We have to take them at their word. This isn’t simply hyperbole or bombast or empty rhetoric.

Terrorists believe they’re winning the war on terror, and they’re becoming emboldened.

Dick Cheney’s means aren’t the proverbial rifle shot. They’re the shotgun, and you know what happens when he puts one of those weapons in his hands.

But in the bigger picture, he and President Bush are roughly on target.

We’re at war, like it or not.

This enemy cannot be appeased.

In the long run, it would be peachy if the radical Islamists lost their bid for world domination, and facing facts, they came to the peace table cowed and bent on reform.

And then they could be treated like Japan and Germany, and we could go about the serious business of helping them, as we did our other former adversaries, to build their economies and to establish or re-establish democratic institutions.

But this may not take place for generations, and we have to regard our leadership as fundamentally correct w

occasionally to places they aren’t located, even if it means we’ll spawn a new generation of them where they weren’t, to begin with.

Forget about his flawed reasoning, I say, and focus on the objective: Reducing the terrorist threat so it becomes at least somewhat manageable.

I’m sure the great majority of Americans support this goal, especially during a time when Pope Benedict is being burned in effigy and threatened with assasination, and terrorist leaders are speaking about converting infidels everywhere to Islam, under threat of the sword.

We have to take them at their word. This isn’t simply hyperbole or bombast or empty rhetoric.

Terrorists believe they’re winning the war on terror, and they’re becoming emboldened.

Dick Cheney’s means aren’t the proverbial rifle shot. They’re the shotgun, and you know what happens when he puts one of those weapons in his hands.

But in the bigger picture, he and President Bush are roughly on target.

We’re at war, like it or not.

This enemy cannot be appeased.

In the long run, it would be peachy if the radical Islamists lost their bid for world domination, and facing facts, they came to the peace table cowed and bent on reform.

And then they could be treated like Japan and Germany, and we could go about the serious business of helping them, as we did our other former adversaries, to build their economies and to establish or re-establish democratic institutions.

But this may not take place for generations, and we have to regard our leadership as fundamentally correct

ing burned in effigy and threatened with assasination, and terrorist leaders are speaking about converting infidels everywhere to Islam, under threat of the sword.

We have to take them at their word. This isn’t simply hyperbole or bombast or empty rhetoric.

Terrorists believe they’re winning the war on terror, and they’re becoming emboldened.

Dick Cheney’s means aren’t the proverbial rifle shot. They’re the shotgun, and you know what happens when he puts one of those weapons in his hands.

But in the bigger picture, he and President Bush are roughly on target.

We’re at war, like it or not.

This enemy cannot be appeased.

In the long run, it would be peachy if the radical Islamists lost their bid for world domination, and facing facts, they came to the peace table cowed and bent on reform.

And then they could be treated like Japan and Germany, and we could go about the serious business of helping them, as we did our other former adversaries, to build their economies and to establish or re-establish democratic institutions.

But this may not take place for generations, and we have to regard our leadership as fundamentally correct

rbial rifle shot. They’re the shotgun, and you know what happens when he puts one of those weapons in his hands.

But in the bigger picture, he and President Bush are roughly on target.

We’re at war, like it or not.

This enemy cannot be appeased.

In the long run, it would be peachy if the radical Islamists lost their bid for world domination, and facing facts, they came to the peace table cowed and bent on reform.

And then they could be treated like Japan and Germany, and we could go about the serious business of helping them, as we did our other former adversaries, to build their economies and to establish or re-establish democratic institutions.

But this may not take place for generations, and we have to regard our leadership as fundamentally correct

the peace table cowed and bent on reform.

And then they could be treated like Japan and Germany, and we could go about the serious business of helping them, as we did our other former adversaries, to build their economies and to establish or re-establish democratic institutions.

But this may not take place for generations, and we have to regard our leadership as fundamentally correct with respect to their overall objective, despite the fact that the means to achieving it are subject to serious disagreement.

It would be unwise to continue to marginalize Mr. Cheney, because like the broken clock, he’s right at least twice a day, and some of his views are accurate.