Part of it, I guess, is obedience to superior authority. Soldiers have to trust that their superior officers have higher principles in mind. That would probably follow for World War II or Korean vets. But what about Vietnam? Officers and noncoms who put grunts into deliberate danger were fragged - something unthinkable in previous wars.

(Disclaimer: I never served. I got a high draft lottery number in Vietnam and was never drafted. But my father retired from the military after serving in World War II and Korea, and finished his service as a recruiter. I was around military people quite a bit and thought I understood them.)

People volunteer for the military for patriotic reasons (Pat Tillman immediately comes to mind) and also out of desperation (I know a young college woman who couldn't find civilian work, which is becoming more and more common). They can't all be ignorant of the nature of this war. Was the disinformation campaign by the Bushes that thorough, that "bulletproof"?

After Vietnam, some people were determined that America "chickened out" and lost the war. But I thought most of the people directly affected by the war simply wanted to forget it, and vowed never to be pulled into a conflict like that again.

I can't understand it. I can't believe people were that stupid or that easily deluded. Too many people supported this war for too long. And afterwards, if they deny that it was a mistake, we may end up in another pointless war ten or twelve years down the road.

I'm not going to single out the British in this. Basically, everyone in the world hates Americans and will do their best to screw us over. It only takes one Ugly American (ever read the book, kids?) to make it bad for the rest of us. And we now suffer the fact that we voted for the Ugliest American Ever - or we were Democrats, who were too wimpy and passive to stand in Ugly's way.

The author didn't have to leave the United States. He could have called someone in Britain to do the research, make PDF's of the documents and e-mail them mback, and give the guy an honorable mention in his book as payment. Or what's the worst it could cost if the British guy charged for his work? Fifty bucks? Cheaper and safer than air fare.

Nine-tenths of travel for "research" or "local color" is just an excuse to write the vacation off one's taxes. Stop flying on these trips right now and get used to staying in your home town. After all, when our oil runs out next decade, you'll never be able to fly trans-continental anyway.

Try opening your mind, son. There is no reason to go to England or anywhere outside the United States, if all you want is information. There is a thing called the Internet, and Lexis/Nexis, and the Library of Congress, and so many others...

It's hilarious that people claim that travel is "broadening." About all travel outside the US ever broadens is the understanding that everybody else hates Americans. The sound most heard in terminals from returning international flights is a continual sigh of relief.

In fact, the pretension that actually going to England to find a few pieces of paper is better than getting them e-mailed to you is the same pretension that Havrilesky has with her cappucino and her egotism. This guy didn't want the information, he wanted bragging rights. Unlike Havrilesky, he paid for his conceit. This case should have been a sequel to Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities.

I've seen you pull this "drop everything and impeach Bush and all will be okay" stuff on other Salon LTTE's. That's your particular mania, okay? Other people have the mania for finding out who "really" killed JFK, and you should be just as considerate, because their quest is as quixotic as yours.

I don't know why you, personally, do your thing, but I've known some JFK conspirators. To them, the moment JFK was killed was the moment everything went bad. The country got worse and worse Presidents, Vietnam and Waco and Columbine and Iraq happened, and it was all because that wonderful, heavenly, saintly Kennedy was killed.

Which just shows the power of assassination to purify its target. I remember that Kennedy was going to have a hard time heading into the 1964 elections. He'd screwed up relations with the alumiumn, copper and steel industries, damn near losing the labor vote because he wanted to break the strikes and keep those industries running for defense purposes. To many people he seemed more style than substance. He practiced the "brinkmanship" that he so decried in Nixon, and almost went to war over the Bay of Pigs. But when he was killed, all that was forgotten.

And as we all know, the person who finds the true killer of JFK will gain immortality and will, through dint of his superb investigative skills, become the head of the Illuminati, which will then rule the earth for a thousand years of peace and prosperity.

Conspiracy nuts - and nothing I saw in the article eliminates Mr. Talbot from that classification - really believe this. But at least they don't interrupt every other column on Salon, whether TV, sports or movie reviews, screaming that we must all impeach Bush now. Hint, hint.