Joan, what are you going to do with yourself when the Dems come to power in '08 and we have a major terrorst attack occurs shortly thereafter? I am sure it will warm your heart to know that you can blame Bush for many more years to come.

Be careful how you and your people so thoroughly underestimate the nature of the islamofascist threat. I hope you have not concluded that these guys are just "a police problem" and that the GWOT is just some neocon right-wing(nut) propaganda. As Bush gets trashed over the remainder of his term and the rhetoric goes through the roof, don't start believing your own BS too much because when Jan 20, 2009 arrives, you own the problem.

I read all the posts to this sad episode and what struck me is the level of saddness and anguish that goes with the decision to abort or not, and it never seems to end. Secrets are put away forever, or at least one thinks so, until the next generation comes along, or a few years pass, and then there is a need to share the guilt and shame with someone else. Others simply bury the secrets even deeper.

I suppose that is a small price to pay for our freedom to choose.

This was a great article. The main reason is that Gary Kamiya let somebody else, who actually knows what he is talking about, do most of the talking.

Wolpert did not address why there is such an unmeasurable difference between the intellectual capacity of a single human being and that of the nearest ape. You could put 10 monkeys in a room with 10 typewriters for 5 years and there would not be a single complete sentence produced. So after millions of years of evolutionary effects on both species, we have one specie (us) that can launch like specie into space and return them safely and our nearest intellectual competitor can barely speak (ironically, we first tossed apes into space before we followed them).

I am not covering for the creationist crowd because evolution is the scientific reality, but, to claim that religion and its orgins are a product of evolution only and all other considerations are scientifically invalid is not taking full advantage of one's intellectual capabilities.

I never thought I would utter these words but I guess (by default) I am now "for Hillary". My reasoning is simple: she is a hardened SOB who will not take any crap from anyone. What this country cannot afford in 2008 is four years of a Jimmy Carter milque-toast coming on the heels of 8 years of Bush incompetence. Hillary has the political instincts of Nixon, can be boring and dull at times, but I think she is more pragmatic and more capable than her competition.

Whichever candidate that comes across as the most competent will win in 2008. Ideology and who "hates Bush more" are distant seconds or thirds on the list. Just ask John Edwards.

There is NO inevitablility of war between the Bushies and Iran in the sense that Greenwood suggests. Bush knows that there is no political will to attack Iran unilaterally unless one of our Navy ships is sunk with the loss of hundreds of lives or something like that. There is HOWEVER a deepening sense that Israel and Iran will come to blows over nuclear weapons (SHORTLY). This is the MAIN EVENT, so to speak, but gets little reflection in the article. Instead, Greenwood proposes that the US take the military option completely "off the table" vis a vis Iran, which is music to the mullahs' ears. If that were to happen, Iran's day of reckoning with Israel would be one day closer. You see, Greenwood envisions a world in which good intentions count for something, but history is replete with examples of where good intentions were largely interpreted as signs of weakness. The US has a role to play in the Persian Gulf to keep Israel and Iran as far apart as possible. In order to do this there are military needs and there must be a willingness to use them.

If you are a believer in the various theories surrounding so-called "small wars", you will quickly realize that for the US there is no positive endgame. The options facing the US are simply: sign up for endless war or accept defeat. For the bad guys in Iraq and Afghanistan, the choice is also keep fighting or accept defeat. This is a classic war of attrition for which the little guy usually wins by default. The big guy can win as long as the little guy is denied access to outside resources and can get the job done quickly, usually in only 3-5 years. However, the little guy is thinking in terms of generations, or 20-25 years, if necessary. Also, the little guy is fighting for his very existence while the motivation for the big guys is usually some abstract concept, i.e. freedom or tyranny.

The sad part is that these theories have been around a long time but nobody thought they still applied to the mighty USA in 2003. Ask the French about Algeria. Ask the Russians about Afghanistan. Ask the Colombians and the Peruvians about endless "small-wars". Oddly, the US is the least capable of dealing with small wars because we specialize in conventional war not wars of insurgencies. Above all, ask the Israelis about the last 50 years. If the Israelis can't get it done why does the US think it can do the impossible.

Incompentancy destroyed the Bush presidency, not anything related to religion or religious values. Historians will conclude that GWB made poor strategic decisions on many levels and will probably be rated among the most ineffectual presidents along with Jimmy Carter, who by the way, was more of a religious freak than GWB ever was. Carter used to teach Sunday school while president. I don't hear any lefty types whining about that little snippet of history.

Once again, another useless article written by another useless Salon writer.