Why the huge fuss about these non-binding resolutions? Lots of grumpy letters in the article about the Senate giving up for now, because of "politisizing." The House all set to go next week.

But really, what's the point of a non-binding resolution? Don't you think Dubya will read any non-binding resolution from Congress and go, "who cares? I'm the decider"?

What both Houses need to do now is find a way out of Iraq. The Republicans can debate on the side of our troops staying no matter what. The Democrats can debate on an exit without causing more damage to the region.

Either way, we need debates to find a way out; we don't need non-binding resolutions telling Dubya that his strategy sucks/doesn't suck/kind of sucks.

. . .are suspiciously quiet about this.

$12 Billion? Who cares. It's those treasonous terrorist-loving Democrats who are the problem.

After reading the preceding article about pre-war intelligence, isn't it clear why the Repugs are making such an issue about Nancy Pelosi and "her" luxurious plane?

It's called a diversion, and the Repugs are masters at it.

"Goldsmith believes that the war on terror will be won not just by force but by ideas"

I believe the only way to stop terrorists is through ideas. If you want to see how far force will get you, look at Israel. That country has not enjoyed peace since its creation. Using force as a response only creates more force.

In order to fight terrorism we need to (1) find out why the terrorists are against us (what's their beef with us?); (2) decide if any of those beefs are justified; and (3)work to change those things that are justified grievances.

In the above example, the U.S. is not going to start taking rights away from women (o.k., I'm being super idealistic here) or force its population into one religion (ditto) in order to appease Muslim terrorists. However, the main beef that Osama bin Laden had against the U.S. was its presence in Saudi Arabia. Was that beef justified? I think it's reasonable. Could we get the hell out of Saudi Arabia? I think that's reasonable, too.

Of course, in Bushworld, that was NOT reasonable, so instead, we start a war that alienates the whole world and creates new generations of terrorists -- who now have an extremely justified beef against us.

This is how Bushworld works. Sigh.

Hi Bill -- Here's a letter I posted about a different article, but it might give you an idea of how we Salon.com readers/liberals/Bush haters/insert name here think. (By the way, we welcome opposing viewpoints, as long as they are thoughtful.)

"Goldsmith believes that the war on terror will be won not just by force but by ideas"

I believe the only way to stop terrorists is through ideas. If you want to see how far force will get you, look at Israel. That country has not enjoyed peace since its creation. Using force as a response only creates more force.

In order to fight terrorism we need to (1) find out why the terrorists are against us (what's their beef with us?); (2) decide if any of those beefs are justified; and (3)work to change those things that are justified grievances.

In the above example, the U.S. is not going to start taking rights away from women (o.k., I'm being super idealistic here) or force its population into one religion (ditto) in order to appease Muslim terrorists. However, the main beef that Osama bin Laden had against the U.S. was its presence in Saudi Arabia. Was that beef justified? I think it's reasonable. Could we get the hell out of Saudi Arabia? I think that's reasonable, too.

Of course, in Bushworld, that was NOT reasonable, so instead, we start a war that alienates the whole world and creates new generations of terrorists -- who now have an extremely justified beef against us.

This is how Bushworld works. Sigh.