There will be no change in these policies or practices because taken collectively, they work.

"Work" to accomplish what, precise? Encourage radicalism? Make us afraid of our neighbors? Turn us into informants against each other?

Your underlying thesis seems to be these various measures have actually minimized the threat of international terrorism, whereas even a casual reading of the news demonstrates this isn't the case.

"Bad things" will continue to happen; terrorism itself is only one of them and is as old a tactic as the human species. The most productive thing the Democrats can do (and to some extent already are) is to discard this laundry list of idiocy the current Administration has saddled the country with and encourage a more rational response to the threat.

Apparently you folks don't understand that applying general negative labels to beliefs of very large segments of the population just pisses people off. Carry on.

Not the dross he constantly spouts off, but because he seem to always be talking to the mirror.

Sounds like the onset of meglomania.

9/11 happened and it was a milestone event. I know you'd like it to just be a blip but that won't happen.

So are you arguing that another attack like those on 9/11 - which were successful primarily through a remarkable confluence of timing, targets, and official inattention, btw - won't happen?

A few thousand here and there.

More like between 6,000 (in Chicago) and 100,000+ (in Washington).

The fact they were so thoroughly ignored or minimized by the MSM is a testiment to Glenn's underlying point.

Anyone that doesn't advocate immediate withdrawal NOW is scum.

Odd you conclude this, how Glenn wasn't even discussing withdrawl from Iraq.

...is this true:

liberal bloggers are on the same level as Limbaugh and Hannity.

The rest of us know better, and pity those who do not.

...is this true:

The so-called "foreign policy establishment" at least devotes some thought to the likely consequences of a humiliating American defeat in the Middle East,

Those of us paying attention already know that same "establishment" is singularly responsible for that defeat he fears so much yet refuses to acknowledge.

I personally pity him, as I would any diseased and dying animal from the wild.

...let's kick shooter242 some more:

Here's a novel idea for you, even if what they say is true, (which considering the fabrications of Jamil Hussein and TNR's Beauchamp is far from verified) it is STILL worth it to stay.

So much for "supporting the troops", eh?

* Leaving the most important element of industry to religious fundamentalist fanatics is a really bad idea.

Which industry is that? Iraq's infrastructure is such a mess nobody can produce anything.

* Given enough time the strict imposition of Sharia will turn public opinion as demonstrated by Sunni tribes people.

So much for respecting the Iraqi peoples and their culture.

* Like it or not, being there is better than them being here.

Why would "they" come "here"? By and large, these people simply want their country back.

* Cultural alternatives that can blunt Islamic fanaticism can't be demonstrated if we run away.

They can't be demonstrated when you're nothing more than a trigger-happy occupying army either.

* If we run away we demonstrate that we can be beaten with relatively little effort.

Even if we're officially asked to leave? Again, so much for respecting the Iraqi people.

* If we demonstrate we can be beaten with little effort we have no diplomatic leverage other than bribery, rendering negotiations useless.

I believe it was your fellow traveller Brad who characterized all diplomatic negotiation as "bribery". But then, you and he were never serious about diplomacy in the first place.

* Running away will also escalate the civil war, though that doesn't seem to matter to liberals for some reason.

The civil war is already escalating, or did you miss the news of the 500 dead in one day recently? The presence of US troops is having zero effect one way or the other.

That reflects the current situation on the ground,

Only in your head perhaps, and even then I'd question if you haven't been smoking the Pipe of Poppy while you're at it.

But I'm sure you'll come up with something irrelevant to toss in there.

And risk displacing you as the Master of Irrelevancies? I wouldn't dare.

It was OK to invade Afghanistan, and topple their government in the pursuit of one man that may or may not be responsible for 9/11, but not Saddam with already demonstrated ill will that we thought would harm us?

Precisely how was the Hussein regime an immediate and direct threat to the United States mainland?

Precisely what ambiguity still exists concerning Al Qaeda's role in the 9/11 attacks?

But as always IOKIYAD. Too bad OBL didn't go to Iraq, then the invasion would have the blessing of libs everywhere.

Indeed, it would have. What a pity all its done is destroy a lot of lives and the US Army instead.

This is why you and yours should never be allowed out unsupervised, unshackled, and given opposable thumbs.

Sure. It would have been better to leave us wondering what the true state of Saddam's armaments were, and the people of Iraq under the thumb of a totalitarian dictator. Oh yeah, that's a truly humanitarian position.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to make a serious point.

They need to have their noses bloodied and be taught a harsh lesson. An additional benefit of military action against these rogue nations is that it will restore domestic national unity in the US that we enjoyed in the aftermath of 9/11, which has been badly frayed over the past two years by petty partisan bickering.

All the world is a playground, and the US is the bully.

We should pity they who hold such a thing as truth and believe it self-evident. Not for they such things as ethics and civilization.

Pity is more than they deserve and all we have for ourselves, for we cannot give unto them what they truly deserve.