I read on the front page of the Post about major gun legislation coming before the senate, about Reid and other democrats getting behind it and there's only 1 other diary talking about it, with as of now no responses what is going on?

I just finished reading a post about how we have 2 options available to us in response to terrorism.  1 to be like France, in otherwords withdrawal and isolation, and the other to be like Israel; constant war.  Why doesn't anyone look at how the UK has dealt with the IRA.  Perhaps I am off here (I am just 23 and the days of the IRA being a real problem in the UK were before me becoming really politically conscious) but it seems to me that some sort of compromise was used.  They didn't completely withdraw, it's not as if they left the protestants out to be slaughtered and yet it seems that after many decades of trying to utterly squash resistance they realized they had to give some consessions.  It seems that at the moment we are heading on a course of action very much like Israel.  It also seems that that course of action hasn't work and never will.  So why is any compromise immediately dismissed.  Rove chides us trying to 'understand' the terrorists.  Does anyone even really know what Islamic extremist even want?  I mean if their goal is to make all women cover there hair worldwide then we don't have much to go on here but I really doubt people strap a bomb to themselves for that. How can we get past this idea that understanding is weak?

So whenever something big happens like the bombings in London today I like the check out what they are saying over on the Al Jazeera site just to see another perspective (the english version for the site is http://english.aljazeera.net just in case anyone is interested).  Looking on their page I came across something interesting about a Humas spokesman condeming the attacks in London because it was an attack on innocent people while using transportation, or something like that very odd.  However not related to the London bombings I came across this article http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/23A0A815-7FD2-4482-A20A-09DDF72D8A5E.htm which I found extremely disturbing.  I know this site is usually reserved for bashing conservatives but this raises an issue which is troubling because of the complacently of both parties.  To be sure I am very a supporter of Hillary except for her unwaivering support of Israel after articles like this.  Hopefully I'm wrong.  Hopefully articles like this are merely the biased of an Arab based news agency but that just seems too easy.

Not to be antagonistic but why all these cries for Clark.  I admit I like his army of volunteers idea (deeply sorry I don't remember exactly what he called it) however that was it.  He seems as if he would make a fine VP, had good credentials and this very interesting idea for promoting patriotism and social service however that was the extent of his message.  He had no clear agenda.  It seems to me that what he had and now what people are saying is that "he could win."  Well look we tried that, Kerry won the primary with "I can beat Bush"/"I can win"  when the general election came that just wasn't enough he needed to communicate what his issues were not simply "I can beat Bush."  Most importantly what Kerry and Clark failed to do was tell me WHY they wanted to be president other than they thought they could.  Let's not have our 2008 slogan be "I REALLY can win"