In some ways, it is no mystery the Martin Gale thinks that bloodlust is as American as apple pie, because whether it is or not, it has been declared so, relentlessly, in the media for so long that if one ignored public opinion and only watched television, such a conclusion would be inescapable. Dating back to the first Gulf War, wherein the networks willingly abandoned any semblance of objectivity and chose to present war as a triumphant miniseries about American Power and a weapons industry trade show, Americans have been told that their greatness was inextricable from their willingness to exert power through violence. At the beginning of the Iraq war, rather than debating the "merits" of engaging in that conflict, again the networks presented breathless "previews" of the war to come. How glorious it all would be. They even went so far as to announce that, after Mission Accomplished, Bush was unbeatable, Godlike, and the Democrats might as well pack up and go home.

The problem is, they were tragically, repeatedly, and spectacularly wrong. Given the universally fawning coverage of the War party, even in the face of utter defeat and every prediction being proven not just wrong but the opposite of what happened, one must give the American people a great deal of credit to see past the lies and arrive, albeit tardily, at the proper conclusion about this latest, and possible next, war. Imagine, if the media had given a balanced, realistic, perspective about the war and its proponents.... How many people would still support the war? Five percent? Ten?

To assert that another terrorist attack would turn Americans against war opponents is to ignore that the exact opposite occurred in Spain, and assumes that the American people are stupid enough to believe their televisions again. There is ample and growing evidence that they are not. It would also finally puncture the absurd meme that we are "fighting them over there," and bring Bush's score against the terrorists to a shameful 0-2. Bring 'em on, I say. And to argue that Cynthia McKinney's defeat was solely because of her opposition to the war, rather than her other bizarre and histrionic behavior, is just uninformed and overly simplistic.

I think that a general election that pits a staunch opponent of the Iraq war against one of its most maniacal adherents may be just what American democracy needs, and the result would be a sharp stick in the eye of our war-loving media.

Steven Rockford.... You left out part two of the "we do not torture" lie that takes it from "1984" and sends it straight to "Through the Looking Glass:"

A) We do not torture.

B) They deserve it anyway.

Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty," was a devastating indictment of the Bush administration precisely because O'Neill, a loyal Republican, was disgusted and horrified at the gross ineptitude and flagrant corruption of Bush's minions, as well as the appalling management style of Bush himself. O'Niell, one of the few members or the administration who saw public service as an opportunity to serve the country rather than loot the treasury and settle personal scores, was soon dismissed for his heresy.

Some Republicans, Elephantman included, are still unable to grasp that negative opinions about Bush are the product of sufficient oxygen reaching the brain, rather than"bias." By every measure, Bush is the worst president in American history, and his party and the country will suffer for his stupidity and hubris for the forseeable future.

This is decidedly not NPR's fault. And Fox's nauseating groveling before Bush isn't going to fix it, either.

O'Niell's difficulties with the administration were based on his belief that the second round of tax cuts were irresponsible, and that the Iraq war was being pushed for no good reason, without concern for the consequences.

But speaking such truths are firing offenses, when you work for authoritarian sociopaths.

And blaming "bias" is perhaps the only, albeit ineffective, way to defend them.

Twenty lashes with a macrobiotic, cruelty-free wet noodle for the next person who calls to mind any sexual position or organ and President Bush in the same, or even adjacent, sentence.

Even metaphorically, such imagery makes waterboarding look like patty-cake.

If, as John Paul seems to be asserting, the Afghanistan was was so necessary, why then did the Bushies go ahead and lose that one, too? Defense Secretary Gates just complained that because of Iraq, our allies are now leaving us to our self-made mess in Afghanistan, a half-hearted disaster quickly abandoned for the next, bigger adventure and now in chaos. Mainstream or not, the major lesson we have learned from the debacle of Bush, is that neocons love to start wars, but are too stupid, craven, or flat-out nuts to win them. This could stem from the fact that, to a man, none have ever heard a shot fired in anger, or suffered a worse injury than a paper cut.

Likewise their supporters. Racism and bloodlust are evidently sufficient to sell wars to your slice of the public, but they aren't enough to win them, "necessary" or not. That takes competence.

WT...

It was difficult even with a drink in my hand; but some of the comments were worse. At least two key parts of the presidential anatomy were mentioned with funny, but unappetizing vividness.