As always, it's much easier to destroy something than build it.

A bold statement, given your crowd does nothing but destroy.

Again, your crowd had its chance and demanded all dissent be stifled. Your crowd has failed. You have failed.

Step aside and let the adults clean up your mess as best as possible. And above all, keep your mouth shut.

O'Hanlon's words are twisted out of context.

Demonstrate this.

Moreover he ignores the fact that this recent optimistic assessment of the military success of the surge strategy is the almost unanimous view of everyone who has visited Iraq recently, even Democrat Senator Dick Durbin (who in a previous incarnation infamously compared our troops to Nazis).

Given Senator Durbin did nothing of the sort? His comparison was between the tactics being employed, which bore out when he made it.

But then, only amateurs argue over tactics.

Of course many of these war critics, while conceding the military success, carp about the lack of "political progress". They are ignorantly missing the big picture there.

If military success were the only metric for success, that would be enough. The lack "political progress" is the "Big Picture". So either document the points you make or stand proven a liar.

The only fly in the ointment are the increasingly desperate efforts of Iran and Syria to disrupt this progress. But President Bush and General Petraeus have plans for them also.

Again, document this or admit you are grasping at straws to convince yourself this disaster was a worthy effort.

Ignoring my substantive points about General Petraeus' successful political strategy complementing his successful military strategy.

'Documentation' does NOT mean 'recite unsubstantiated talking points'.

'Documentation' means 'provide verified third-party accounts of these stories'.

Either provide links that actually substantiate your points or admit you have nothing.

Simple enough?

I'll explain this one more time, even if you slightly change the wording of the question again.

Exactly how do you manage to keep your civil and moderate tone when addressing these idiots?

Being wrong is not lying.

A short lesson in ethics:

Deciding to act upon information that is questionable at best is not wrong, if foolish.

Refusing to acknowledge how questionable that information was if wrong, and suggests dementia.

Using questionable information as the public reason for taking action when the actual agenda is hidden from scrutiny is wrong, and constitutes deliberate deception.

Insisting that information was correct even after it has been disproven is wrong, and constitutes deliberate deception.

The lesson here: lie to yourself if you must, but don't expect the rest of us to support you, shooter.

You've failed. Time to give it up.

Karl Rove is jumping ship as well. A sign of good or ill, I know not.

I mean, who's going to be left to run the West Wing?

Not the point of this week's strip; that's old hat. Not the customary poke-at-convention behavior our beloved Opus engages in. Not even the abnormally restrained manner of Steve.

What disturbs me the most, what chills my very soul, is the sudden reappearance of Lola Granola!

Has she returned for good? Will she and Opus take back up where they left off?

Are Bobbi Harlow and Ronald-Ann Smith waiting in the wings? What of Cutter John, Hodge-Podge, and Portnoy?

I'm of two minds for the return of all our favorites. Right now I'm just enjoying Opus's stumbling along alone in this horrid and confusing new world we live in. Still, it'd be nice to see the rest of the gang, eh?

Now, after 9/11, Glenn thinks anyone who sees islamic fanatics as just more hyperbole.

You really have difficulty reading english, don't you? Is it a second language or did they just skip that bit at Christian Boot Camp?

I think the same is true regarding salonistas who claim our constitution is being shredded, due to NSA intercepts of suspected terrorist phone calls.

False comparison and you know it. The metaphorical-yet-real shredding of Constitutional guarantees in the last six years are well documented. The illegal conduct of the Bush Administration in the field of surveillance has been admited by President Bush himself.

The 'Islamic Horde' these idiots are crowing over simply don't exist.

On the other hand, the existence, tolerance, and lack of criticism towards islamic extremists is clear. Read Christopher Hitchens article for a specific example. There are others.

You clearly don't read much here. No-one here actually supports the many manifestations of Islamic extremists. What you interpret as 'tolerance and lack of criticism' of these movements is anything but; we're discussing a completely different topic, but I daresay are united in our collective loathing of any form of violent extremism.

Oh, Hitchens is perpetually in his cups these days, not to mention bereft of any real status in the world. Who else have you got?

Why can't the left take off their "I hate bush blinders" and see islamic fundamentalism for what it is? When will they criticize it? Demonize it?

Perhaps because (a) none of us here are wearing blinders, (b) recognize Islamic Fundamentalism is no more monolithic than Christian Fundamentalism or Jewish Fundamentalism, and (c) its nowhere near the threat to American society the current Administration poses.

And precisely who, incidentially, is "they" in this context? Muslims around the world, or the readers of this weblog?