This article leads to an informed public. I could not ask more from a journalist.

My only caveat is that an effort should be made to mention the things that drive our foreign policies beyond a simplified notion that we are expanding democracy or a hedge against extremism. When we refer to 'American interests' we should start all articles of this nature with the words oil, and military complex. Our "interest" in Iraq is primarily oil and establishing military bases. We expand our military "footprint" in the world by establishing bases in foreign countries and expanding our control of space and the seas. This is international power. Control of the region and its resources. Other ways in which we wield power internationally are support of governments/regimes, and control of economies.

When we refer to "American interests" in our foreign policy, some effort should be made by journalists to explain that these are not truly in the interests of most Americans. Our nation's addiction to oil is not in our interest. It is this addiction that boxes us into corners and forces the hand of foreign policy. Americans do not profit from the war in any way, not even in increased security. Oil companies and war contractors do.

Recently in the news helicopters are being shot down in Iraq. Some of these helicopters were owned and manned by Blackwater, private contract security forces. Where do these people exist in the military chain of command, and who's interests do they represent, in terms of regional foreign policy? Serious questions should be asked about how they came to be operating armed missions in helicopters over Iraq. By digging deeper we can expose who and what pulls the strings of the neocons and what shapes our foreign policies in general.

I'm counting on you, Gary, to consider these items while researching your next article on this subject. Kudos.

If he personally would not fire these people after reading their blogs, yet did so because of external pressure...how would he stand up to greater external pressures as president? What other things will he compromise when pressure is applied.

To hell with winning the news cycle. Stand up for your staff. If your campaign can not withstand this type of media hype, then what will happen when the real swift boating begins. It is time candidates started pushing back. Next the media will say you scream funny and that will be the end of your campaign.

Free speech. Either your for it, or against it.

Rights of an individual. Some would think that rights only apply to those who are intellectually cognizant. This is so very wrong. Rights are most important in protecting those who do not have power, and control over their own destiny.

I see a lot of prognosticating the future. "She will never walk"..."She will have the brain of a 3 year old forever"..."she will mature and be molested." I didn't realize the medicine was so definate, and the future so well placed.

I could have sworn that we are dealing with a medical profession that is constantly evolving, reinventing, and dropping off bad practices. Electric shock treatment was the norm in the past, practiced on helpless (in many but not all cases) individuals by well meaning guardians and doctors. The question of future care and of the potential for future molestation should have never entered the equation. You wouldn't allow a parent to neuter a normal child for fear of future molestation.

These parents were saddled with a hard responsibility. They have failed in that responsibility. Shame on the medical profession for not standing hard against this. This goes beyond a medical ethics issue, this is criminal behavior.

Democrats and their campaign managers should have a clearer strategy for dealing with this stuff. It seems like every campaign is completely caught off guard by these tactics. They seem to wait for the media to turn the wrong way on a story and then spend their efforts on damage control. It is ineffective to be on the defense all the time (see Kerry campaign.)

The improvised explosive devices that are supposedly being supplied by Iran, have been in use by the Sunni insurgents since the start of the conflict. It is basically a shape charge, and would be better defined as a technique than an actual weapon that is traceable to a particular nation.

Basically the government is suggesting that shape charge I.E.D's are new to the conflict and are being supplied by Iran.

I call bullshit on that.

Here we let the administration set the agenda. Over and over the meme that is now repeated by Republicans and Democrats alike, is that the war has been mismanaged. This blows by everything else that should be on the agenda. The Downing Street Memo, the outing of Valerie Plame to counter dissent, the manipulation of intel, the theft of billions of dollars, the sacking of Iraq, the failure of congress, the failure and complicity of the media, the erosion of constitutional rights, domestic spying, war crimes, the crime of war itself, not supplying troops with armor, not admitting that Iraq has been in a civil war since the day we invaded, the ruse of pretending that foreign jihadis are running the insurgency, the rise in power of the military complex, the death and maiming of countless human beings...and on and so on. Instead, the agenda of Iraq, as set by the administration, as regurgitated by the press, is the mismanagement of the war. Mismanagement of the war. Think about that. Mismanagement of the war.

It is as if they had "managed" the war correctly, then all of the above would fade into the ether.