Hezbolla and Hamas aren't the way they are because they think that we are bringing democracy to the region. They are the way they are because foreign invaders (the Israelis) have taken their land and continue to take their land with the help of the US. What would we do if the roles were reversed?

9/11 was not ideological it was practical. When we found N. Vietnam supporting the Viet Cong, we bombed the crap out of them. From the Palastinian perspective there is no difference between N. Vietnam and the US and no difference between the Viet Cong and the Israelis. Until you understand this perspective, nothing that happens there will make any sense and you will not be able to write a prescription that will make things better.

In the 1960's a Harvard Math Professor named Tom Lehrer wrote a tune called "Send the Marines" (to the tune of "The Halls of Montezuma"). The tune's lyrics are, in part,

"...they must be protected,

allll their rights respected,

until somebody we like can be elected..."

(in reference to a country who makes a move of which we don't approve)

American actions (as directed by Shrub) make it clear to any idiot that when he says democracy, he means a democracy that is acceptable to the US. Any student of history will be able to tell him what the likelihood of that approach working.

In the words of Arlo Guthrie, "...when we got to the police officer's station, there was a third possibility..."

After the fall of the government the CIA imposed on Iran in the 1953 coup, the US sought another US surrogate government in the Middle East to do our bidding. We lighted on Iraq which, under Saddam Hussein, seemed to fit the bill. Iraq eventually contravenied American policy by attacking Q8 (attacking Iran in the '80s was OK, we provided Iraq arms to help them support our policy). So we needed another surrogate. Shrub & Co seem to think that Israel will fit the bill (note the earlier suggestion that Israel could violate the airspace of Jordan, Syria, and Iraq to launch an attack on Iran's nuclear program). Since we have largely made our Middle Eastern policy congruent with Israel's, it seems a perfect fit.

Thus we see the US rearming Israel so they can continue the attack on Lebanon rather than seeing them run out of ammo and become vulnerable to an attack by another Middle Eastern power.

As Mr. Smith points out, by the time someone is heading to the aircraft, it's too late. The reality is that guards, be they the firearm toting type or the metal detector/xray type, do not provide security. For decades we simply handed over our bags to go into the hold and walked across the tarmac and climbed the stairs to the aircraft.

What's different between then and now? There are groups that are pissed off at us. And, contrary to received wisdom, it is not an irrational fury. There is a cultural divide that makes comprehension difficult on both sides. In the end, however, the only solution that will work is going to be the removal of the cause of the fury. Merely trying to bludgeon it will only result in a continuance of the current situation.

Mr. Grieve quotes president shrub as saying ...how bad would it be if the US left Iraq before it's government could impose order...

I am under the impression that one doesn't "impose order" in a democracy under normal circumstances. So does this mean that the Iraqi democracy is like the "democracies" we set up in places like El Salvadore, Nicaragua, Iran, et al. where our puppet governments could do our bidding?

In any event, our government needs to learn that you can't dictate the "will of the people" and when the "will of the people" is Hamas, for example, we've got a problem, not the Palestinians, no matter how much we try to make it their problem.

I'd like to point out, Joe, that Iraq started the Iran-Iraq war, not Iran.

In a number of your essays, Mr. Keillor, you have used the term the Current Occupant when refering to the Prezzie (although who could consider him a prezzie (pun intended) is an open question). I feel this is not quite right. I believe the phrase should be The Current Occupant. The difference is subtile but, I feel, important.

When I saw America's response to 9/11, I said that the terrorists already have won. And I made statements similar to your security guru's. But, since The Current Occupant is not a leader of the stature of the man who said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself.", I realized that America was being handed over to clear extremists and people with a skewed vision of reality.

So now I'll drive 13 hours to Denver rather than fly. That vision of a protest is probably as futile as an airport sit-in but at least it keeps my stress level down and allows me to take the stuff I want with me on a trip.

In the world of Electronic Countermeasures, the professionals know that for every new ECM technique or device, a counter measure will be developed (or ECCM). The same is true for people who wish to perpetrate terrorist actions. The only way to remove the threat of terrorism is to remove the reasons why the terrorists chose to fight. Neither guards nor checkpoints will ever provide real security.

And here I thought the only people interested in women's breasts were men and babies...