I agree with everything until the last few sentences. Of course the president can ignore the voice of the people. He already has, and has made it clear he either doesn't know that polls show a majority of Americans want troops withdrawn from Iraq, or he knows and is in denial. Or he simply doesn't care. As for deciding what the last two years of his second term will be like, you're assuming too much. He is not given to introspection, has said as much many times, and his family history doesn't chart any course he could take except the one he's on. The last six years will play themselves out in the next two: no change of course, no insight, just full speed ahead. What's past is prologue.

There's always been a strong edge of contempt to Vidal that made him a liberal twin of William F. Buckley. Though they could both make outrageous observations in a seemingly charming way, what seemed to motivate them most was narcissism and drowsy contempt for anyone who didn't buy into it.

I tried reading the new memoir and it was much of a muchness, nor have any of his novels ever seemed that compelling, even the ones mentioned in this piece. As for Vidal's anti-semitism, it's best summed up by his claiming that he couldn't be, because his life companion was Jewish.

In the final analysis, he's a minor litterateur who unconsciously, it seems, decided being a Personality was more important than his work.

I'm waiting for one of Salon's intrepidistas to write a daring and transgressive companion piece to this one. It would feature male mannequins with "real" packages. Think of the territory to cover and uncover. There would be so many questions regarding display length and its effect on sales; the long vs. thick issue; paragraphs galore on cut vs. uncut; and the aesthetics of dress-right vs. dress-left mannequins. The whole issue of balls (low-hanging? unobtrusive?) could prompt at least 100 letters and many more trips to store windows. Big busts? Small busts? Old hat. It's time for the 21st century to take mannequinery to a new level.

The session was attended by "esteemed dignitaries like the singer Tony Bennett and the actor Richard Gere." Calling Gere and Bennette dignitaries of any kind is what one might expect of E! If this was not meant ironically, the author has shifted over to a new calendar, BP and AP, Before Paris Hilton, and After Paris Hilton.

With all this talk of new strategies and troop surges, what gets lost is that the Iraqi PM doesn't want more American troops, and wants the American troops in Baghdad to withdraw to positions outside the city. But obviously, the man we championed as a sign of the growth of democracy in Iraq should be ignored and sidelined. What the hell would he know, and who cares what his opinion is about his own country's security and future?

I read a lot of memoirs, but I would never pick up Pollack's book if this is a sample. I was tempted to skim through much of it, but kept going. The dialogue struck me as unbelievable and crass when it wasn't stiff, and I found it difficult to sympathize with anyone here (except for the baby). Pollack might have been better off filtering this material into a short story, but as a memoir, it doesn't feel reflective or original enough, just a series of gripes, written about in very unmemorable prose.

I couldn't agree more with what Douglas Moran and others have said about the tired, cliched and intrinsically bigoted dichotomy of OT=Hate, NT=Love. It's a battle I've been fighting for twenty years as a Jewish author and public speaker. It's a losing battle, unfortunately, and the fact that Salon let this piece go through unedited is proof. It's not the first time, either.

Christianity committed one of the greatest heists in history by hijacking the Torah, reordering the books, mistranslating them, and finding patterns and texts there that supposedly point to the NT ("typology"). For centuries, Christians have been telling the world what the Torah says and what it means, so much so that plenty of Jews I meet have absorbed these hateful distortions and even use the term "Old Testament." Sure there's violence in the Torah and tribalism. But there's no love there, charity, understanding, kindness? What about the Golden Rule? What about the calls for justice from the prophets? What about the concern for impartial trials, the love shown for strangers, widows, orphans? I could write a much longer list, but doing Judaism for Dummies for so many years wears a person out.

For a start, I'd like to see writers like Kamiya call those books by their correct name: The Torah. Hebrew Bible or Hebrew Scripture would do just fine, too. We call your books by their proper name: The New Testament. How about returning the favor; it's only an act of respect, how hard could it be?

I'd like to see Kamiya and Joan Walsh or whoever edited this piece actually do some research and look at these texts from a myriad of Jewish perspectives and see how Jewish tradition reads and understands them. Then, perhaps, you'd have a much better idea that even when the Torah was redacted, many of its proscribed punishments were considered too harsh. How was this dealt with? Why not take the time to find out, rather than let received "wisdom' just get regurgitated by authors and in fora that should have higher standards.

What would you expect from the Jew-hating trolls who visit these pages but "the Senator from Tel-Aviv" comments?

They are delusional. How could civil war, growing regional chaos, and a brand-new thriving center for terrorism in the region help Israel?

Democracy and stability are what would help Israel and all Near Eastern nations, not their reverse.