I know reporters way back when gushed about his manliness, but I've never understood it. Sure, he was tough (read: stubborn), but his rhetoric was often oddly soft. It made him sound like somebody's grandma: "Gosh!" and "Golly!" and other such expressions have always puzzled me when Rumsfeld utters them. He sounds like a wuss. I suppose you could argue he wants to curse and can't say what he'd like to, but the fallback position makes him sound weirdly effeminate.

The map meant to show Israel's disproprotionate influence over American foreign policy fails abysmally. There's no way Israel wields more influence with the Bush clan and Bush administration than Saudi Arabia.

My heart sunk when I saw Junger's book the subject of a big review here. Just as I turn to Salon for analysis of news that is being ignored by the MSM, I expect the reviewers to not cover the best-selling authors who get far too much coverage in the print media. I wrote a Mysteries column (among other things) at the Detroit Free Press for years and acknowledged the new books of big names in a short list at the end of each column, but tried to focus on less-known authors and smaller presses whenever possible. Why? Because American media outlets have become more and more obsessed with best-selling authors like Junger and Dan Brown and Elmore Leonard, to the exclusion of far too many equally talented but less-known authors whose books aren't pushed by massive PR campaigns. A friend who was the book editor at a major newspaper quit after 15+ years and her shorthand reason was this: "I got tired of the pressure to keep doing features on Stephen King." The press is like a set of fun house mirrors, with one reflection after another (however distorted) of the same, predictable figures. I expect something better, something more diverse and less clichéd from Salon.

I should have added that I love Laura Miller's writing, so much so that she was one of the first guests on my interview show BookTalk, and she was as fascinating as I expected she'd be.

My criticism wasn't about her review itself, merely about the choice of book, because, pace TucoYohei, I don't come to Salon.com for cocktail party cheat sheets, though a seperate section with that label might prove very useful.

Sidney B. writes

"I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true. One, I believe there's an Almighty." This is one Bush doctrine that is inarguable.

Inarguable? Says who? Why not grant every other claim he makes if you're granting that one?

So oil rose $50 a gallon all of a sudden? Wow. I misse that sudden jump.

And now that it's at $70, innovation will quickly make more choices available?

Like what? Running our cars on the vast landfill of newsprint which printed crap aidingd and abetting the lies of this administration?

Brilliant satire, beautifully delivered, and in terms of the moment, I rank it up there with Elie Wiesel telling Reagan not to go to Bitburg. Nobody speaks truth to power in or out of this administration. Nobody dares. Except Jon Stewart and Colbert.

Given the major problems Andrew O'Hehir finds with this book, why is it getting so much attention and space?

This review is like fiction reviews that say, "Well, after the first fifty pages, it gets better." Why waste my time?

Mutatis mutandis, the review reminded me of the unbearable piece Farhad Manjoo wrote about that equally insipid book Blink, which fooled far too many people into thinking it said something new.

He's a quisling, just like Lieberman, and should be removed from his position as whip. What is wrong with these DINOs? What are they afraid of?

FBI files hanging over their heads?

I've published 17 books in a wide array of genres, many hundreds of reviews, stories and essays and writing is not hard, as someone here said, writing well is. But harder even than that is dealing with the publishing side of the business: handling disappointment, overworked editors, and crabby reviewers. :-)

I've always found writing to be a joyful, fulfilling, exciting experience--as good as sex with half the clean-up. I love it so much that I even enjoy revising, getting a 2nd or 3rd chance to work on something, as when a short story published in a magazine ends up in an anthology and you have more than one chance to fashion the piece. You'd be amazed what having two diferent editors can do to clarify a work.

I understand that some writers find writing itself or getting their minds fcused on writing painful, but I always wonder: Why bother? Do something you love that doesn't cause you so much agony. Instead of Annie Dillard's complaints, I like to think of writers like Zola and Dumas who had a zest for life and an equal zest for writing.

Thank you Joan for your reasoned assessment of the post-Colbert flimflam.

The pundits and journos who have declared his gig "not funny" have neglected to address a curious question: if it wasn't funny, if he indeed did bomb, wasn't that instantly newsworthy? Imus's poor performance didn't get a press blackout, it was all over the media right away. So there's obviously more going on here.

But I do indeed think it was not funny: it was painful, scary, highwire performance art. In its own way, as stunning and disturbing as Elie Wiesel urging Reagan not to go to Bitburg. It was a historic confrontation with arrogant power. To the MSM Valley Girls hissing, "As if!", those do not tend to be laugh riots.