How far does Bush Derangement Syndrome reach? This essay is a case in point - ignore the complexity of the situation on the ground in Iraq and make it all seem to be just a "Bush did this" diatribe on why we need to cut and run.

As an aside - Mr Blumenthal wrote a similar piece on the Guardian webste the other day - and even that audience was not buying it. I am sure that Salon will be a much easier sell job.

Does it ever occur to this writer that the people of the Middle East actually may have motivations of their own? That what happens in Washington is really not their prime motivation - and specifically what happens to Bush is totally out of their perspective? You have so many flavors of insurgents - Sunnis trying to restore their privileges, Shias (Sadrists) shucking for Iran, just plain thugs running a kidnap and rob operation and on top of it all - Zarqawi running a terror and "let's start a civil war" operation. Zarqawi had the face recognition because he ran a great PR shop - and he certainly did not need the help of the Pentagon to promote it.

But there is one truth - the "insurgents" all have one common goal - and that is to prevent the current government from getting up enough momentum to start moving the country forward. Because when that happens, they lose the ability to use guns to force their point. And with Zarqawi dead - maybe the violence can drop a notch and just let the "freedom fighters" kill themselves (as they seem to be doing so well in Baghdad)

Making progress in Iraq is like herding a pack of cats in heat - it happens slowly and it does not run on a schedule. The people of this area have their own culture and their own speed in getting things done. But if encouraging them to move forward and control their destiny is wrong - then what is your "delusional" alternative?

I would like to see the intellectual heft of the left engage more fully in the ideological struggle that SHOULD be being waged against the Salafist/Whahabi curent that seems to be generating most of the violent behavior among Muslims in the world (or cowing the rest into silence). If you look back in the Muslim world, this is where the current round of violent jihad thought seems to be spreading. To call all adherents of Islam "terrorists" is plainly wrong, since all Muslims do not adhere to this school of thought. But at the same time to deny that there is NOT a problem with the growth of this interpretation throughout the world is also equally wrong - with the equally valid question of why it is so appealing?

Al-Qaida was a problem long before 9-11 - in Khobar Towers, in Africa (Nairobi) and in Yemen (USS Cole), and the same ideology propelled the first World Trade Center Bombing in the 90's. But Al-Qaida did not invent the ideology at it's core - and that is the part that needs to be clearly addressed by BOTH the right and left in trying to find a way to neutralize its appeal among many in the Islamic world. The idea that drives so many to fight, to rage and to commit suicide HAS to be addressed in some way by the "West" unless a total catastrophe is to be averted.

I agree that while Christianity as a faith has had a bloody past, that is no excuse to use it as a club on ourselves today to prevent action against the violence of another faith. The West pretty well grew out of the violent phase with religion as we learned to tame the ideas that drove us to conflict. The same can be hopefully said in the future of the Islamic faith. But at this point - ideas and arguments and reasons need to be developed to counter the appeal of the fundamentalists. Since this kind of thought process gets you killed or imprisoned in the Islamic world - it better start being developed in ours if this insanity is to end.

The Tipton 3 - as they fashion themselves - were perfect gentlemen who just happened to rush over the border into Afghanistan to "help" - or was that in search of the "perfect naan"?

Lets be honest - there is enough grey in this story to nuance the most casual observer's suspicions. The 3 gents live in the UK - and frequent a bookshop and mosque with somewhat "strident views". Just after 9-11 they decide to go to Pakistan for a wedding - but never make it there. They DO manage to hang around a radical madrassa and then decide to journey into Afghanistan - "not knowing a war was on" - to a) get great naan bread or b) help their brothers. After a few wrong turns in a taxi - they end up on the battlefield and get captured by Northern Alliance personnel thinking they are Taliban.

Now these guys are either the 3 Stooges or something just doesn't seem right. Shades of Grey here.

I don't support torture. I do not support murdering people. But somehow - this just seems ..too strange. If these guys most likely went to help the Taliban "defend Islam", then a few years in the clink frankly is what they deserved. They probably did not kill anyone - but they did probably lend their hand to one of the most odious regimes in history.

These men represent the problem with the "War on Terror" - who is a soldier and who is not. No uniforms, no ID , just "no one here but us tourists". They melt into the population like fish in the sea. I wish I had a better answer for this other than "lock them up" - but frankly, at this point no one seems to be trying to fight the ideas that motivate these people as much as their potential actions.

But running into a riot and then acting like "what, me?" just seems ....grey.