Re your "straw man" charge: In the column that Glenn excerpted, Simon wrote, "if we lose and fall under religious law..." I assume that "we" in this context means the U.S. or some collective group that would include the U.S., and that "religious" means "Muslim." What could that possibly be referring to, other than a Muslim takeover of the the U.S.?

As the U.S. was planning to invade a sovereign country that never attacked us and was no threat to do so, kill its people, bomb its infrastructure, destroy its government, install a puppet government, and establish a political system of our choosing, no one could possibly have foreseen that some of the people in that country would not like this and would even oppose our noble efforts. Their only rational response was to greet us with flowers, thank us profusely, and erect statues of George Bush in every public square. That they stubbornly chose not to do so is their own damn fault, and there is no reason why Tiberius' beautiful mind should be troubled by your lying statistics.

I guess they use the term "scholars" to subtly portray themselves as dispassionate academics pursuing knowledge for its own sake and the general betterment of humanity, rather than as agenda-driven political actors. (They are, of course, not to be confused with "professors," who are liberal elites cramming leftist propaganda down the throats of defenseless students.)

It's really inspiring to know that the Happy Warrior isn't letting his intense suffering dampen the spirits of his mischievous inner child.

Per your distinction between "Holocaust deniers" and "Holocaust revisionists," I would say it is a distinction without a difference. Their ends are the same; one group is just a little bolder than the other.

A Holocaust denier is someone who contends that the Holocaust did not occur, or that its dimensions have been grossly exaggerated. If you are aware of anyone who has postulated a different definition, I'd be interested to know about it.

If you're still reading this thread, I'm curious to know what Mr. Pagano wrote that caused you to brand him a "neocon troll."

The "difference between Israel and the other nations" is, at least ostensibly, a religious reference rather than a geopolitical one. I am no expert on the Jewish faith, but there is an old, widely recited Jewish prayer that says something like this to God: "Blessed are You who has made a distinction between between light and darkness, between sacred and profane, between Israel and the other nations, between the Sabbath and the six working days..."

I may be corrected by a more devoted Jew than myself (that would be most of them), but I believe that in this context, the "nation of Israel" refers to the Jewish people, and not to the nation-state established in 1948, which the phrase pre-dates. The difference between Israel and the other nations is that the Jews are, of course, the Chosen People, selected by the Lord as the earthly recipients of His Truth, and all the other peoples (nations) are not. If you buy into that stuff.

In this instance, however, because the person saying it is Joe Lieberman, it probably means Nuke Iran. Sigh...

We don't know anything about what they were doing, but if we knew more, I'm sure we'd approve.

The reason fighting-age chickenhawks stutter and stammer and get testy when asked why they aren't in uniform is that there is no plausible answer other than the honest one, which, for political reasons, they know they cannot say:

"I am a privileged individual who deserves to be privileged because I am better than those who are not. This country's institutions exist to provide a support system that allows me and those of my class to enjoy our well-deserved privileges. That includes the military, which provides a mechanism for my social inferiors to make themselves useful to me. Since my comfort is precisely what they are fighting for, it would hardly make sense for me to join them in their unpleasant endeavors, for which they are better suited in any event."

Isn't it the fact of the matter that the Democrats' strategy is to run out the clock on the Bush presidency while being just oppositional enough to keep the base sullen instead of mutinous, avoid the terrifying political risks of mounting any genuine challenge to despotic powers asserted by a despised president, hope that Bush leaves office without blowing up the world first, and hope that he is replaced by a Democrat or at least by a less despotic Republican, such that the present constitutional crisis can fade away without anyone having to do anything that might significantly upset the status quo?

pussy. Iraqis go without electricity every day, and it doesn't stop them from being happy and grateful. What kind of collective punishment is that? What the Israelis should do is starve the Palestinians. Put them in camps (real camps, not those Club Meds the liberal media calls "refugee camps") and don't let them eat. Nothing concentrates the mind like Day Four Without Food. And any time a rocket comes in from Gaza, take ten randomly selected Palestinians out and shoot them. Shoot children in front of parents, and vice versa. Concentrates the mind wonderfully. Ultimately this will work out well for the Palestinians. In addition to their enhanced powers of concentration, once enough of them have been starved and murdered, and the world sees pictures of their grotesquely defined ribcages, people will feel sorry for them and give them a country of their own. Hey, it worked for the Jews. See? Under the Gator90 Plan, everybody wins.