What is overlooked in all this is the problem of winning. Conservatives don't want to leave Iraq until it is "won," but what does "winning" mean? If winning means getting the violence below a certain level, that may be achievable in the short term. If winning means the establishment of a constitutional democracy in Iraq, well, they already have that.

But for conservatives winning seems to mean not only an established democracy, but one that is running like clockwork. That will never happen in Iraq, at least not in our lifetimes. The Virginia House of Burgesses had been meeting for 100 years before the U.S. Constitutional convention. It takes years and years of practice before a nation has enough confidence in the electoral process to make it work. Heck, we had our own civil war because some people still didn't believe in it by 1861.

The argument that "most Americans" want to stay until things are "stable" on the ground means nothing until "stability" and "winning" are spelled out. In this case the American people are a step ahead of the clairvoyant pundits -- the Americans do not trust the government to stop moving the goal line. They realize that unless you get a hard number from a used car salesman, you are going to be swindled.

I think Americans want a strict deadline because they do not trust their leaders to get out of Iraq in a reasonable time frame without one.

As a primary care doctor, I can tell you why medical students don't want to be primary care docs. The money has something to do with it, as well as the longer hours, the student loan debt, the paperwork, and managed care.

But the bottom line is that medical students are techies. They like computers, cutting edge technology, and the science of medicine. They are not people persons. They would rather spend a half hour going over reports, X-rays, slides, or doing fancy procedures than sit in a room with a patient and talk. So they gravitate to high-tech specialties, bypassing primary care, which is low-tech by definition.

This is a side effect of the education and the selection process. Medical schools look for people with fabulous grades and MCAT scores, students with glowing recommendations from professors who are also techies themselves. So what do you expect?

If you want more primary care docs you need more candidates from non-scientific backgrounds. Kids who majored in art, drama, dance, music, or like me, English. Kids who come from farms or other non-suburban lifestyles. Kids who demonstrate strong people skills.

Law schools are at least smart enough to look for students who like to argue. Why can't medical schools look for the single skill indispensable to primary care -- a people oriented personality?

Only an American would have the nerve to argue in public that ignorance is preferable to knowledge. Since when, in the history of the universe, has anyone been harmed by learning Spanish?

Talk about intellectualizing laziness. Pathetic, hopeless, mindless laziness.

If you want to compete in the world, you have to be able to do something your competition can't. That means, among other things, learning a second language.

I just hope when all those multilingual foreigners take over our nation, they are nice to us. Or perhaps I should say you, because I am trying to learn Spanish.

I have sometimes wondered why dictators bother arguing the law at all. When everything is stacked in your favor, why not simply rule by edict?

This story answers that question. The law and legal proceedings often obscure justice, making civil rights abuses look arcane and confusing. Confusion is an easy way for the scoundrel to get what he wants, while deluding the public into thinking justice is being done. Hey, the courts are in session! See real live lawyers arguing cases for the accused! There must be justice going on here.

While I truly respect Eisenberg for his efforts, part of me wonders if, by giving it his all, he is simply helping to create the fiction that his clients has gotten their day in court, which of course they have not.

I am a moderate-conservative and pro-life, but was prepared to vote for Obama over Iraq and the environment. I have a history of voting Democratic, mostly because the Democratic party has always been (at least in my lifetime) the party of civil rights. Their support for telecom immunity is traitorous. If Obama votes for this bill there is no chance he gets my vote.

There is an alternative -- Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. I know Barr is on the conservative end, but he has come out strongly against telecom immunity. He is also in favor of a swift withdrawal from Iraq, and supports a balanced budget.

I hate to be a one issue voter, but the Democratic party, despite the beating it has taken since Reagan took office, still has not learned its lesson. You don't take your voters for granted. If you stand for something, you have to stand for it until the end, not until you have the nomination locked up.

I am tired of the cravenness of this party. The only way to shake these people out of their complacency is a third party candidate. Barr is not a bad option. Even if he does not win, if he makes it on the ballot in 50 states he presents a real threat to alter the outcome of the election. This may be enough to at least get Obama on the right side of this issue.

The Obama people are forcing this issue. If we vote for him, we put our stamp of approval on FISA also.