As a boy in the 1960s, I remember well the constant refrain on television that within such and such a period of time, as our military objectives were accomplished, as the South Vietnamese government became stronger and more stable and as the North Vietnamese were defeated, our number of troops would be reduced. Inevitably, the opposite would happen. Things would get worse, and we would commit more young men to the war effort, always with the stated purpose of "temporarily" increasing troop strength to handle some special operation or push by the Viet Cong. Before we knew it over half a million young American men were fighting and dying in a foreign civil war.

Granted there are some differences, especially in the total number of troops as things currently stand in Iraq. I think this is largely because of Rumsfeld's initial refusal to put in as many as the military said would be needed and now because the Bush administration is trying to avoid a draft at all costs. But, the (self?) deception about needing temporary troop increases so that we can bring troops home at some point 6 months to a year out from the present is the same. The "insurgent" Iraqis can play an indefinite waiting game with us, just like the North Vietnamese. The sooner we accept that the peace cannot be won by more American troops, the sooner we will start bringing our men and women home from this futile and botched experiment in pre-emptive war.

And in my wildest and hardly believed daydream, if the ill will against us is not so great as to be irreparable, perhaps we can work with the international community to help Iraq, or however many entities it ends up splitting into, to rebuild. More likely, there will be more killing and we will be a pariah in the region for at least a generation. Damn the fools that started this war.

There is no honor among thieves.

Does anyone know what the basis is for Allen saying that Webb is the real antisemite in the race, however spurious the reasoning? Or is this just another example of completely unfounded GOP projection of one's own failings upon your opponent?

Having viewed the entire video, there can be no question that Joan was attempting to introduce the issue of some commonalities between Muslim and Christian extremists, not Muslim extremists and Christians as a whole. My only quibble, and it is a minor one given that I can understand being a bit rattled by the vociferous response from Scarboro (sp?) and Bozell, was Joan's not giving examples of Chrisitan extremists having some of the same unsavory characteristics in common with Muslim extremists.

As a public service, let me offer two potential examples.

1. Extreme antiabortion Christians who feel justified murdering doctors who provide legal abortions.

2. Some of the warped religious Christian extremists who have promoted racial purity and racial holy wars.

Both of these examples are well documented (see the SPLC website for examples of the second and Google "antiabortion murder doctor" for information on the first).

Okay, so Bozell misheard you. But how does objecting to something (even if the mistake was Bozell's) amount to "intimidation"?

--A.J.

The intimidation was in the response. In a respectful exchange of ideas, Bozell AND Scarborough would have asked Joan for clarification in a calmer tone of voice. E.g., "Excuse me Joan, are you equating Muslim extremists and Christians?" To which Joan could have replied, "No only the extremists from both religions." From that point, they could have asked her to give particulars with which they could have agreed or disagreed. Instead, they simply tried to shout her down without attempting to make sure they understood her.

I second the call for a link to the letter. I would like to see it in full as well as any information on it's origin. I'm in the process of writing to my "representatives" (sorry, I'm from Texas and have to put that in quotation marks) and would like to be able to quote from it.

Thanks.

There was another very important set of numbers in that survey that I think should be mentioned here

"Overall 94 percent [of Iraqis' surveyed]have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view. Of all organizations and individuals assessed in this poll, it received the most negative ratings (emphasis added). The Shias and Kurds show similarly intense levels of opposition, with 95 percent and 93 percent respectively saying they have very unfavorable views. The Sunnis are also quite negative, but with less intensity. Seventy-seven percent express an unfavorable view, but only 38 percent are very unfavorable. Twenty-three percent express a favorable view (5% very).

Views of Osama bin Laden are only slightly less negative. Overall 93 percent have an unfavorable view, with 77 percent very unfavorable. Very unfavorable views are expressed by 87 percent of Kurds and 94 percent of Shias. Here again, the Sunnis are negative, but less unequivocally—71 percent have an unfavorable view (23% very), and 29 percent a favorable view (3% very)."

This is extremely important, because the Bush administration's latest push to link Iraq with the "war on terror" is founded, in part, on continuing to link al Qaeda with the unrest there. The polling numbers I quoted above, combined with the ones quoted by Tim paint a clear picture that the Iraqis themselves are hostile toward our troops and our presence AND that they hold those opinions not because they favor al Qaeda and Bin Laden. They have negative opinions of us and want to do us harm because we are occupiers.