What both WSJ responses have in common is that they kill people.

Waging a "glorious, endless war" kills people in other countries. And some of those are American. Iraq was a major mistake and Afghanistan was more about revenge than prevention once the Taliban were out of power. Neither war makes us safe and both would be more effective in counterinsurgency, as you say Glenn, if we helped improve the lives of the people rather than tried to kill them.

Meanwhile, the country with the death penalty goes out of its way to revolt against the teachings of Jesus (and most other religious figures) to let the not-so-rich die.

Ah, I remember when being a conservative meant actually conserving something. Yes, I have to go back a loooong way.

Thanks to the Taliban wing of the GOP, the terrorists have won.

In the recent IFC documentary on Monty Python, Terry Jones says of Life of Brian (quote approx), "It wasn't blashpemy because it didn't attack g_d. It was heretical because it attacked the authority of the church."

As you point out, Glenn, most religious extremists are antithetical to their religion and a threat to civilizations. I have no doubt that this continuation of the right wing Culture War will hold and gain traction on the Rapture bunch. But, like previous attempts, the right has invented a Culture War and now finds itself on the wrong side of it.

Judaism is the only religion (that I know of) which has a prayer for people who are religious in other religions. Christianity revers the Good Samaritan and the Magi, who were not of the religion of Jesus. Mohammed acknowledges the divine inspiration of Jewish and Christian prophets.

Or, if you'll allow me another favorite quote, from the tv program Joan of Arcadia, where High School student Joan is arguing with G_d (in the form of a hot dog):

"The Crusades? Oh yeah, I'm supposed to care about people slaughtering each other for hundreds of years because they believe in YOU!"

"That's not faith, that's politics."

Glenn, I very much appreciate that you're becoming a balancing voice in the conservative news media. You're knowledgeable and when you grind your axe, sparks fly.

Having said that, I disagree with your take on the first two appearances (don't have time for three this morning). Re Afghanistan: You're argument, if I understand it correctly, is that the US shouldn't be anywhere in the Middle East. We should completely remove ourselves and our influence from all countries in the area.

This is, first of all, not going to happen. Second, a generic "leave everywhere" didn't answer the specific question about Afghanistan, which is a distinct theater of operations that are only peripherally related to other countries.

Third, your "get out of Dodge" solution to all Middle East problems would create a power vacuum. And political nature abhors a power vacuum. Right now, the US is filling a vacuum created by several others leaving (at various times in various places). For more than 4,000 years, power has waxed and waned in the area, not always to the benefit of either the empire leaving or the people left behind. If we leave Afghanistan, which is about as much of a "country" as Lebanon, someone else will step in. The problem(s) won't be solved.

The US didn't break Afghanistan and we're not required to fix it. But we are in a position to help. At the moment, we are not. Last time we left, after helping them kick out the Soviets, they resented us even more and that led to the Taliban, Al Quesda and 9/11. Leaving now, and leaving them still in a mess, will have worse blowback.

Re Lieberman: Maddow's targeting his flip-flop on the filibuster was good reporting, almost up to Daily Show standards. Your tracing of influence money was good. What perked my ears was "sleaze and transparency." I don't think those two should hang out in the same sentence. I agree with you that Lieberman is not representing his constituency, he's representing his campaign contributors. Is that "sleaze" or simply "politics as usual"? We know just who owns them because of campaign finance transparency (to the extent we have it).

Transparency is a good thing. The lack of transparency is sleazy. Lieberman/Bayh/et al are on the wrong side of this issue, and should be scrutinized for how much they will actually help their constituents.

Lebanon is hardly a distinct political entity. It is a series of controlled zones, by the Syrians, Hezbollah, the Druse, etc. The national government has very little power over local events. Much like Afghanistan.

There are indeed ways the US could make its presence felt even in the region if our military were not there, but that kind of diplomatic contact has to be built up over time. Right now, we are a major force in several regions and if we were to just pull back, someone else would take our place. We have negative credibility in the area partly because we just up and left after the Soviets were defeated. Just leaving now would make it more difficult to influence events in our favor.

My thoughts on How To Do It, not that anyone asked: More or less how Petraeus handled The Surge in Iraq, but better: Buy off warlords, establish a reward system (not just ransom) for helping us find specific people, work with the Afghan government (such as it is) to build roads, schools and cut off drug running, and so on. Some of this can be done by people in the military, but not by troops only trained as warriors. We seem to agree on much of this.

So when people say "we should leave", I say "we should change our focus". Oh, and establish an exit strategy. Establish benchmarks, and thencan do what we should have done in Iraq years ago: Declare victory and leave.