Not that there ever was any doubt about it - this invasion of Iraq was all about oil. So we sacrificed thousands of young Americans and our good reputation for the benefit of Big Oil. But now we have laid the foundation for the next big conflict. Sooner or later an Iraqi government that is less influenced by the USA will terminate these sweetheart deals. The what? Will we invade Iraq again? Or will we topple the government like we did in Iran in the early 1950s? Remember, that set the stage for the current regime in Iran.

Completely lost is the fact that, by using indecent amounts of oil in our military ventures we have driven up oil consumption and with it prices and have used up valuable diminishing resources.

We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

Author is correct: Where is everybody's sense of humor?

But the cover does lack sensitivity and is somewhat tasteless. What would the reaction be if the New Yorker had a cover showing McCain in shackles in a North Vietnamese jail? There has to be a limit and I am afraid the New Yorker crossed the line.

Garrison Keillor has an unequallled way of finding just the right words on most any subject. I love his sense of humor and level headedness. Rush Limbaugh and talk hosts like him and of course those at FOX News could learn from him. But then they are catering to a different audience that would not like Keillor's approach.

I assume this question and answer is tongue-in-cheek.

If not, then the best answer should have been: "What are you, some sort of slut? You didn't like him at first because he cheated on your best friend? And now you are joining the long line of women he used to cheat on your friend? If you really care about your best friend, then marry the guy and help her to get rid of him. Of course now you are the woman on whom he will cheat."

OK, that answer would be politically incorrect but it would have been honest.

I am an American currently living in Germany.

Does it surprise you that the USA is the laughing stock of Europe if not the world because of this "outrage"? In what other civilized country would this exposed breast have produced anything but amusement?

Everything reported in this article is a scandal and needs to be corrected under the next administration. And perhaps some need to be brought to trial.

But all these abuses and illegal acts would not have been possible without the massive and perverse manipulation of public opinion after 9/11. After that fateful day, the current administration immediately started a well orchestrated campaign to create an atmosphere of fear. As Goering famously said at the Nuremberg trials "All you have to do is make people afraid and you can manipulate them at will." Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels couldn't have done a better job. Only the well orchestrated fear atmosphere caused the American people to accept the indignities when traveling, caused most dissent to disappear, and essentially forced Congress to vote for everything Bush needed to invade Iraq. Few had the courage to resist and most who did were duly punished either by the voter or by the Government.

What is Obama trying to accomplish? Reassure those voters who see him as weak against terrorists? If that is his only aim and if he adopts a less aggressive policy once elected then he would be guilty only of deception. He wouldn't be the first President to do so.

The Pashtuns are the Kurds of Pakistan and Afghanistan. They have more loyalty to their ethnic brethren than to either country. Regrettably, they have come under Taliban rule. The more they are attacked, the stronger the Taliban will become. It may be futile but the only way to solve this problem may be to convince Pashtun tribal chiefs that the Taliban are bad for them. It worked in Iraq when we convinced Sunni tribes that support of Al Quaeda is counter productive.

Unilateral military actions in Pakistan run the risk of destabilizing the Pakistani government. The last thing we need is a hostile Pakistan. Lest we forget, they have nuclear weapons. Remember Cambodia? North Vietnam used Cambodian territory to supply their forces in South Vietnam over the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The Cambodian King was unable to prevent it, just like Pakistan is now unable to prevent Pashtun support to the Taliban in Afghanistan. When we and South Vietnam went into Cambodia Prinz Sihanouk was replaced by the Red Khmer. Better think twice, Barrack Obama. There are landmines out there!

What does he mean "Israel's problems are way down his list,". The Israel/Palestinian conflict ought to be tops on Obama's list. That conflict is at the root of our problems with the Arab world. True, most Arab states don't much care about the Palestinians' plight but it is the one issue that unites them all. Arab governments use that conflict to rouse their masses, just like Bush used 9/11 to rouse the American masses.

If support for Israel means to tolerate anything the Israeli Government does to the Palestinians and other neighbors then this support is counter productive. It also goes against what many Israelis want. And many American Jews also feel uneasy about the heavy handed actions of the current Israeli government. It should be clear by now that military action alone and assassination of undesired Palestinians will never lead to real rapprochement between the two peoples. Yes, Obama must make it unquestionably clear that we will guarantee Israel's security and existence but that this doesn't mean we support every Israeli action. Actually, who other than this blow-hard in Iran, no country questions Israel's right to exist anymore. Start the process by normalizing relations with Syria. The partnership between Sunni, non-religious Syria and Shiite Iran is unnatural and it should be not too difficult to rend asunder. Actually, that is already in progress.