Okay, I haven't read all the letters, so pardon me if I repeat someone else's point.

The idea that 2000 election was purloined is one of those pieces of leftist paranoia that I suppose will never go away, but it's utterly wrong.

The facts:

Al Gore initially asked for a Florida recount of only counties he'd already won. So much for "let every vote count."

Lawyers for Al Gore issued a memo on how to disqualify overseas absentee ballots, which tend to be military and Republican.

Lawyers for Al Gore sought to throw out every single vote in Seminole County (which went for Bush) because before the election, some Republican officials helped voters fill out the applications for absentee ballots (not the ballots themselves). A printer's error had left out a line for voter ID number, and if that info hadn't been present, the application would have been rejected. Again, so much for "let every vote count."

The first part of the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision was a 7-2 vote that both Gore and the Florida Supreme Court were violating the 14th Amendment rights of Florida voters. But everyone, Farhad apparently included, seems to remember only the second half, the 5-4 vote that said because of Constitutional requirements that electors be named by a certain date, there was no time for a full recount. (Just because leftists think judges can routinely set aside the Constitution when it suits them, the 5 justices of the Court apparently believed otherwise.)

The post-election recount by various newspapers showed that in every circumstance except the most extreme (which apparently involved clairvoyance), Bush would have won the full recount.

And that's without getting into the voter shennanigans in other states, e.g., students at Marquette University boasting about how they'd voted multiple times, or voters in heavily Democratic southern Florida voting in both Florida and in New York, or how a Democratic campaign worker was bribing homeless people with cigarettes to to vote for Gore ... etc., etc. Bush was enough of a gentleman not to challenge these many irregularities.

This moonbattery now unleashed by Kucinich is what Al Gore has bequeathed us as a nation, and every single election from here on, even those in which there's pretty clearly a winner, i.e., Hillary in N.H., will be suspect.

Thanks a million, Al. Now you can go back to polluting the planet with you big house, SUV entourages, jetting around the planet, etc.

You didn't address a single point I made. You just repeated the silly rhetoric of the Left.

Remember, even those notorious Bush communication organs The Miami Herald and New York Times said Bush would have won the recount.

Don't know anything about Levant, so I can't comment on him. But to call Mark Steyn's well-researched work "pernicious" is just plain wrong.

Unfortunately, Glenn can never just disagree with someone. He always has to name-call and denigrate, which is schoolyard behavior, not the words of an supposed adult.

Yet missing entirely from this analysis is the fact that the vast bulk of Americans -- even in the face of endless claims of Surge Progress -- are more against this war than ever before (.pdf), and -- regardless of claims of Progress -- do not want to continue to support it.

What a pathetic argument. As usual, Greenwald relies on public opinion polls to make a point. It seems he'd rather our government be ruled by the mob than by the considered opinion of our elected leaders and appointed leaders.

That's why our Founders created a federal republic and not a direct democracy, to prevent fickle public opinion from pushing our policy to and fro. Sure, it has it's problems, as history attests, but it's certainly better than the alternative: a mobocracy.

I wonder how willing Greenwald would be to cite public opinion polls to support public policy if those polls showed a majority favoring opinions he doesn't care for. Funny how we never see those cited in his columns.

What a stupid argument. What if he doesn't have any children? Does that disqualify him from commenting? More to the point, children old enough to join the military are legally emancipated adults, and their parents can't "send" them anywhere.

If Deering doesn't have a brain, does that disqualify him from commenting? Nuff said.

Within legal bounds, most U.S. citizens, regardless of color, find it perfectly acceptable to use whatever unfair advantage they have to get ahead --longtime friends on search committees, uncles with hiring ability, puffed-up résumés, glamorous Internet profile pictures.

First off, speak for yourself. I have never done anything like what you allege, and I would admonish my children if they tried.

Two, there's a difference between this sort of behavior between private citizens; it's another to have it be official government policy, in which the government is in the business of picking winners and losers based solely on the color of their skin. That, plain and simple, is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Your failure to make this crucial distinction destroys your entire argument.

... I will be sure to bring up this posting and rub it in your face, Glenn, as well as all the others that pooh-pooh the very real terrorist threat we face.

I will then ask you to write a well-reasoned excuse to all that attack's victims.

I understand your sentiments: why would the Marines set up in places like Berkeley? It does seem counterintuitive, but in fact you'd be surprised. They get some very high-quality recruits (and particularly officer candidates) in places like that. Not everyone there drinks the Kool-Aid, after all.

I know: Go figure!

How (or why) you would negotiate with a group that has sworn to destroy you, that regards you as nothing but vermin. This is not a matter of disagreements, even strong ones; it is a matter of hatred (mostly one-way) that cannot be placated or negotiated with.

Here's yet another case where polls prove absolutely nothing except the stupidity and sheeple-ness of so many people.