To follow up the letter writer who addressed Shooter242 regarding the reasons those who oppose the war do so, among the primary reasons to continue to oppose the war, from the first day of it to now, is that THE WAR WE LAUNCHED AGAINST IRAQ IS ILLEGAL. OUR CONTINUED OCCUPATION OF THEIR LAND IS ILLEGAL.

Even if the war had gone well and none of the many catastrophic aftereffects--all of which had been predicted--had occurred, and even if we had left Iraq mere months after our invasion, the war would have been an illegal act.

To support the war now, whatever the purported reasons, is to support the continuance of a illegal act; it is to assent to the war crimes we have committed as being of no consequence. All that counts is that "we win" (sic).

We've lost, AND we're violators of international law and of the Geneva Conventions. Whether we wish to recognize it or not, we're a pariah nation, a rogue state.

Mr. Pincus states that, while Japan attacked us directly, Germany did not, and thus, we must infer to be his point, if we had believed then as Glenn and other "self-hating liberals" (sic) believe now, we would never have joined the Axis powers and Germany would have prevailed in its march to conquer Europe.

Mr. Pincus fails to note that on December 11, 1941, four days after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war against the United States.

This rather changes the picture, doesn't it? If Iran were involved in an ongoing, broad-based military invasion of its neighbors with the intent of conquering the Middle East, and if it declared war against the United States, there would be a more compelling rationale for us to engage them militarily. Their actions and official declaration against us--as with Germany in 1941--would offer undeniable justification for our violent response.

However, Iran is NOT trying to conquer the Middle East, and it has not declared war against the United States, and it has asked for resumption of diplomatic engagement. We have NO justification, compelling or even faint, to attack Iran or to even discuss military action against them.

We are a rogue nation now, our administration one of war criminals and mass murderers, and those who support and applaud our ongoing war crimes and who encourage our entering into new war crimes must be seen as traitors to America.

I.F. Stone famously declined to socialize with the wielders and brokers of power in Washington whom he covered, as he recognized the perils of becoming too chummy with one's subjects: one would come to develop friendly bonds with them which could compromise one's ability to see them clearly and to report on them honestly and frankly, particularly where such honesty would reflect badly on their character or behavior.

The Beltway today is a big frat party, and many of the journalists see themselves as peers of those they cover; when one knows and likes another, it is difficult to stop oneself from finding reasons to justify or at least mitigate the character flaws or questionable behavior of that person. This is a natural part of human psychology and it is admirable when friends stand behind one another. However, a reporter's responsibility is to report on the activities of the powerful with honesty and with skepticism. A reporter who becomes friends--or who is seduced into thinking he is a "friend"--of the powerful people he covers has already betrayed his primary constituency and his professional responsibility.

Joe Klein is just another whore, like all the rest. (To quote the title of a book by writer and music critic R. Meltzer; Meltzer meant the title to apply to himself.)