What exactly is this dreaded L word? I don't think anyone is saying no one has the right to speak their opinion, however, it is awfully tiresome to hear nothing but criticism from people who feel it is there inalienable right to globetrot without the least bit of inconvience. Makes one sound awfully pompous and spoiled doesn't it?

Yeah, Tucker, I heard Karl Rove designed the banner, sewed it himself, swam it out to the ship and hung the darn thing all by himself. I can't remember what leftist fringe website I read that on.

Get real. You want to bad mouth the Admin and you seek every opportunity to do so, no matter what the subject or situation. Did I spell that out clearly enough for you?

Llama? Limoncello? Liberal?

It's all over once this thing degenerates into namecalling.

Is this the first politcal street brawl of the new year?

Thank you Patrick...you got it off my chest for me too, and yes, it did feel good. I grit my teeth listening to xyz123's and the Howard Dean's of the world who pound their chests and proclaim, &quot;Well look we captured Hussein and we <i>still</i> have fighter jets shadowing commerical aircraft&quot;, or the like. grit teeth grit teeth

By the way, xyz123, do you recall which country Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was a citizen of?!

Hmmm...guess it wasn't as far off my chest as I thought.

Oh my, a nasty little political slugfest is brewing.

I'd love to comment, but one of my New Year's resolutions was to forgo politics until the next wacky liberal is elected president of America.

I may never get to talk politics again.

What is &quot;lavatory&quot; ?

Richard Reid was British. What's your point?

I am very sorry but I am rather amused at people like Elaine who very snidely ask if this is &quot;a travel question&quot; when there are so many NON-travel questions on this board..everything from having another Fodors get-together &quot;hen party&quot; to how cute or snippy the waiters are in restaurants nobody ever heard of. And, of course, some of us are being forced to deal with the issues surrounding the current &quot;war&quot;..that is, the issues that are finally hitting close to home.
But, ohhhhhhhh nooooooo, we can't possibly discuss politics because it isn't &quot;travel related.&quot; It isn't???? In this case I'd say it very much is.

!! Re-read the original poster's second paragraph.

My dear Tuck,

You wrote
&gt;How about putting the 130,000 troops and the $87B into an effort to catch the bona fide terrorists ...&lt;

130,000 troops is an army. What do you propose to do with that army?

Before commenting, could we have the link to the newspaper, not to mention corroborative reports in other newspapers? What exactly is the wording of the proposed solution? If there is to be debate on this, the terms of it should be clear.

Also, I'm a bit behind the times, I fear: What is a biometrically approved passport?

and, &quot;how about putting the 130,000 troops and the $87 B into an effort to catch the bona fide terrorists, &quot;

Now that's a brilliant idea! Guess nobody ever thought of that before -- just catch them. Sounds so simple and logical you wonder why no one ever thought to do that before? So tell us exhalted one. How is that done? Don't you think if anybody knew how to catch the bona fide terrorists they would have done it long ago? And don't you think the bulk of these programs are attempts to do just that -- catch the bona fide terrorists? This is another of these meaningless comments I'm talking about. Someone saying &quot;oh it's simple. Why don't they just go stop the terrorists.&quot; Duh!!!!!

A BlackCat has crossed my path and I must be careful today!

It's interesting that no one, including ChatNoir, Patrick, et al, has yet bothered to address Queenie's excellent point about the bureaucractic nightmare created by these new rules.
I'm all for increased security, but unwieldy, impractical proclamations like the passport rule don't increase security with any degree of significance. They DO place enormous burdens on the offices and staff that are supposed to work under these rules.
As for lav lines, if they are in force *only* for the front of the plane, then it shouldn't be a problem--that's First Class territory and lav lines were never a big problem there. But back in economy--if the rule applies there, how on earth will that be handled on a full flight? The FAs are NOT going to be happy (or willing) to act as Toilet Police. And passengers themselves are not likely to adhere to the rules graciously--look how many still try to get around carry-on baggage allowances or recline their tiny seats back as far as possible, or stow their carryon in the front of the cabin, even if they're sitting in the back or getting drunk before the flight or (insert your choice of rude, selfish behavior here) ...
If the lav line rules take effect in economy (as I have seen in one report), we won't see improved security. We WILL see more incidents of &quot;air rage&quot;, guaranteed. Making passengers even angrier and more frustrated than ever and making FAs more frazzled than they are already is a security improvement? Hmmm...is a puzzlement!

What do we do with the 130,000 troops, Tuck?

The Australian airline Quantas has already issued rules forbidding passengers to queue in the lavatory areas on trans-Pacific flights, so this is not a &quot;crazy Bush&quot; idea. The belief is that any attempt to seize the plane would likely be preceded by a &quot;pre-snap huddle.&quot; This regulation presumably makes it more difficult to coordinate an attempt to hijack the aircraft.

I feel sorry for those who have prostate problems.

slojan writes &quot;Perhaps we can add that the Gov't, should have a long term approach to solving the problem which means that we don't do the easy thing now, damning the consequences&quot;

Here is a long term plan that is certainly not the easy thing to do. The U.S. should force the two most unstable, brutal dictatorships in the Middle East out of power, sacrificing American lives and pissing off our apologist allies if necessary (and &quot;damning the consequences&quot;, and then establish democratic governments in their place, enfranchising the previously repressed citizens of those countries. This would pressure the other dictatorships of this region to open their systems as well as honor their obligations under international treaties to forsake weapons of mass destruction, as well as serve as an example to empower the people of the region who previously had no other outlet for their frustrations than to blame Jews and Americans for their plight and join the mujahadeen.

Oh wait...we're already doing that.

I don't agree with xyz and his/her ilk who think minor inconveniences are somehow the downfall of bill of rights but, if Xyz wanted to be honest with him/herself and wasn't just a political hack, s/he would acknowledge that each year under every administration, laws, rules, regs., etc. are inacted that make us less &quot;free&quot; to do as we please. If xyz weren't partisan, s/he would be denouncing all such rules/laws, etc., not just hounding Bush. And, good grief, as a passenger I have a better chance of taking out one terrorist (with my paperback and lunch tray), than several terrorists all standing in one of the only &quot;open&quot; areas of a plane.
Tuck: Thanks for the idea. You are more productive than some of the naysayers, but you know it isn't that simple. Some cancers can be cut out; but too often they spread. Bush is attempting to address many problems in this world at the same time. Sending an entire army to find bin laden, for example, doesn't seem like an efficient use of our resources. Only history will be able to judge whether Bush's priorties are correct
Queenie: Please give us the basis for your information and how does a future requirement (xyz said only post Oct.04 passports) cause a current crisis? It is not unusual that a legislature or other entity passed requirements that weren't yet capable of being met. Inevitably, either the technology, etc. changes, or the requirements change.

Bitter.

http://travel.guardian.co.uk/news/st...118611,00.html