Greenwald appears to be in pain over the "liberal" or "far left" label that he has earned so well. He wants to shed his fringe and outsider status and embrace the center where there are no political labels. But, first he must agree

1. That conservatives are not congential idiots

2. That political views can be a reflection of deeply-held religious or spiritual views.

3. That Israel is the best hope for peace in the Middle East, not Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran

4. That suicide bombers are not freedom-fighters, they are killers

5. That Amanda Marcote is a religious bigot and that John Edwards is a moron for hiring her.

6. That Guantanamo was intially a brillant idea that has run its course and should be done away with.

7. That torture means different things to the Egyptian secret police, the Syrians and to the American military. Duh!

8. That al Qaeda is not a police problem

9. That some cultural values are inherently harmful and should be called what they are: evil

10. That if GWB sent 150,000 troops to Afghanistan and followed up on 9/11 promises, instead of launching the Iraq mess, he could well be up there with FDR or Churchill. (that's probably a stretch)

11. That GWB on his very worst day is much better than Hitler ever was on one of his very few best days.

12. That the next president will not be much different than GWB because this country has so few good options

13. That the 1% doctrine vis a vis al Qaeda has merit. Even John Edwards can't ignore its implications

14. Keeping your distance from Gary Kariya and Joe Conason. Joan Walsh is OK

The loopy Left is attacking the one thing that everybody agrees on, namely, that al Qaida are the real bad guys and have the track record to prove it. For once, the incompetent Bushies got something roughly right (as opposed to being precisely wrong most of the time) in that the real enemy is and has been al Qaida.

Once again, Greenwald is wasting everybody's time.

This piece summarizes well the risks and possible outcomes of the current US action in Diyala province. The risks to US forces is high because of nature of house to house combat, booby traps, etc, etc. The likelihood of a positive outcome is low because it is unlikely that the Iraqis can hold any territory in a meaningful manner after the US troops pulls out of the area. This is life in Iraq for US forces since 2003 and I don't see anything really changing anytime soon.

However, The US is changing its rhetoric and calling everybody who qualifies as a "terrorist" as al-Qaida. This is a slippery slope in that if the US is forced out of Iraq and al-Qaida in Iraq is deemed responsible, it will be huge propaganda pick-up for the real al-Qaida. On the other hand, it could clarify matters in the sense that the Iraqis overall may agree and give the US the support it needs to root out the terrorists.

Hey Greenwald: why is it that all the people abroad that allegedly hate us would like nothing better than to get a travel visa to come here and then stay here permanently. That part hasn't changed a bit in the past 6 years.

Why don't you write something useful like discussing how these opinions vary among different age groups. You might find some interesting results such as the older the person is, the more likely that person has a favorable impression of the US versus twenty-somethings who probably "hate" us, but would love to get that six month visa to come here (permanently).

An analysis like this actually requires some effort which means I won't find it here.

The lefty types believe that the solution is to use "neighborhood policing" tactics to root out al Qaeda and other jihadists like these guys are burglars and pimps. Al Qaeda wants to purchase nuclear weapons any way it can and use them on Israel and then NYC (probably in that order)and Kamiya says leave them alone and watch them disappear over 2 or 3 years. You really got to be kiddin me? No police force in the world is a match for these guys and the best intelligence in the world means nothing if there are no logistical support to carry out actions against these guys. The level of nievete on Kamiya's part is appalling and it demonstrates a poor understanding of the region.

Now hold on for a moment. Are the hard core lefties of Salon trying to make "nice" with the Catholic Church by suggesting that Democratic policies are more consistent with Catholic teachings than the policies of the Republicans? I don't think so. The Catholic Church provides most of the "heavy intellectual lifting" for the Christian Right and I don't see that changing any time soon. The Dems would have to reverse positions on abortion rights and gay marriage and that will never happen. Say what you may about Guiliani and his positions but the Dems still mistrust the Church and the Pope primarily because they continue to remind the Dems of the fundamental immorality of abortion.