So I guess I now know the consensus Salon readership position on this; it is OUR fault for having naval warships in the Strait of Hormuz.

con·sen·sus

–noun, plural -sus·es.

1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

In other words, no, that conclusion is not the consensus here. It is an opinion shared by some of the posters. Try and grasp the difference.

In so doing, perhaps you might finally realize that an argument made entirely out of straw will never carry the day, hence the reason why you end up looking like a fool each and every time you post here. Take a little instruction. If you feel strongly about your pro-Bush worldview, then surely you can find an effective argument with which to promote it. (Or not. You've been trying all this time, with no success...)

I would say the consensus here is that it was wrong for the military to distort what actually happened here (and it is now clear that they did), because in doing so, they further damaged their credibility. Considering it's really OUR military, as in, yours and mine and Glenn Greenwald's, I'm pissed off that a handful of corrupt politicians are damaging it in this way. All patriots are.

You don't care about any of that. I get that. Your only concern here is to make Bush's policies seem somehow acceptable, facts be damned. Ironically, I can imagine you also give lip service to having a strong military and supporting the troops. Pity you can't see that these are mutually exclusive.

I've known my share of recovering Catholics, people who went to Catholic school and confirmation and all that, later to feel that it was a crock of shit and that the Catholic Church had been responsible for all sorts of atrocities. Those people, as they're going through this discovery, can be a bit annoying. They indulge in sacrilege, making cracks about Christ on the cross and stuff, and it's like...yawn...so, um... (As an example, the movie Dogma.) But it seems as if, like when molecules break apart, that some energy is released as these Catholics were separating themselves from all they'd thought holy, or at least the sillier parts of it.

This woman is a recovering Muslim. She's highly educated, and through that and some fairly nasty experiences, she was jettisoned from her religion and culture, just like my ex-Catholic friends. As one does this, I've noticed an adoption of rigid, very negative views of the culture that's being rejected/is rejecting. As well, the tendency to express these views quite vocally.

I think this is a natural human behavior pattern. Think of how you may have held melodramatically negative opinions about an ex-significant other just after a breakup, maybe even slagging him/her off to your friends, later to admit to yourself that he/she was just human.

In the meantime, the AEI us taking advantage of this behavior pattern, by bankrolling this woman to voice her very rigid views about her former religion and culture. (Seems her viewpoints improve the outlook on their stock portfolios.) Pretty cynical. I think Ali's got a point: Islam has not gone through its Enlightenment, and it appears that it needs to. But I think that's a pretty hardcore view to go global with, and I assume it would push most Muslims away. I can imagine her security bill must be outrageous! (It's probably being paid for through the AEI guys' stock futures.)

From what I've seen of Muslim culture (my in-laws are Pakistani), direct confrontation and provocative/insulting talk is not the best way to persuade people. I mean, for the same reason democracy can't be imposed by gun barrel, enlightenment can't be imposed by taunts. (Let's face it, a devout Muslim would see what she said as pretty insulting, regardless whether or not I agree with her.) What it does do is polarize people further, and increases the chance of violent conflict. Which brings us back to the AEI guys' stock portfolios...

"Fine, don't come crying to me when Sudanese ninjas break the Internet just because you were too proud to let us read your IMs."

Okay, Mitch, you've got yourself a deal. You drop your Big Brother plans, and I'll refrain from crying to you about the Sudanese ninjas that will inevitably break the internet.

That seems fair, doesn't it?

Tom Cruise says that a scientologist has to stop at a car wreck and help. But I'm thinking, if Tom Cruise had ever actually done this, it surely would have made the news and I would have heard about it. Moreover, if he were to stop and help at ever car wreck he passed, given that he lives in LA, it would be in the news all the friggin' time: Tom Cruise Helps at Yet Another Car Wreck. Tom Cruise Is Honorarily Deputized by the California Highway Patrol. Etc.

So, since that hasn't happened, and Cruise clearly does not stop and help at every car wreck he sees, does that make him a Spectator?

Or I am spending too much time seriously analyzing the rantings of someone who is clearly bonkers?

I hope that after Rudy's campaign dissolves, that Podhoretz goes to work for the Republican nominee. We need this level of delusion to be voiced often and openly, and always with a connection to the GOP. The voters need to clearly understand whose war this is. All Republicans need to wear a scarlet "W" (for War, or just for "W") for the foreseeable future.

A cursory internet search revealed he described Clinton as 'more sinned against than sinner' and I believe (though I don't read him) he has generally been positive about the Clinton presidency

I don't suppose you'd be willing to share with us what your cursory internet search revealed that makes you believe that Klein did not in fact pile on the Clinton/Lewinsky, would you?