In fact, the term "reverse discrimination" is logical, in a sense. Throughout our nation's history, white guys have experienced the reverse of discrimination -- it's called "entitlement." No wonder they want it back.

And here's another problem with dignifying this legal position with the term "discrimination": proponents of these conservative legal views aren't actually against discrimination. They're fine with discriminating against everybody who isn't a white guy or a Christian of the type who wants to see the 10 Commandments in courthouses.

What if Saddam Hussein had actually had WMD and American troops had destroyed them safely, without loss of civilian life or any environmental damage, short-term or long-term? What if Iraq had welcomed American troops with cheering, extremists had been thrown in the slammer, and the rest of the liberated population immediately set up a stable democracy that lasted for decades, centuries, millennia? Would $300 billion and the lives of American troops have been worth it?

No. Hell no.

Would creating this vision have been worth U.N. involvement and international aid? Perhaps -- but we'll never know now! The U.N. wasn't given a fair shot at handling Iraq, because the President "decided" he knew better than all the rest of the world's leaders put together.

There is no way to "spin" this war that justifies it. None.

Yes, Tim, I agree: people in the public eye, ostensibly contributing to the public debate, should choose their words carefully. And when people in the public eye make outrageous comparisons and contribute only hate and strife to the discussion, they should be held to account. But that holds true for everyone who participates in determining the future of the country -- which is to say, everybody.

Which is why I will say, yet again, that the Republican Party as a whole must be forced to answer for the hate-filled statements made by the likes of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Cheney, Bush, Bolton, etc. Ignoring the ignorant and mean-spirited attacks is not making the attacks stop. The few adults who are left in the Republican frat-house have got to be held accountable for the actions of those less mature who "lead" the party on their behalf.

Certainly, setting a good example for public debate is admirable. However, the reports of Bolton's hearings indicate that few in the Republican Party are accustomed to answering for their actions and attitudes; certainly nobody in the executive branch now seems to feel any responsibility. Democrats should not be held to a higher standard.

Can I vote for her?

Bush and the Republican Party ensured that the "right" democracy was elected in the U.S. in 2000. They did it again in 2004, in a seriously dirty campaign that had Bush riding the Big Oil Swiftboat back into the White House. Now Arlen Specter wants to give the "right" democratic leader even more power.

It's been successful at home -- of course they'll follow the same M.O. abroad.

"And she remained deaf and dumb to rumors that everyone was hearing."

C'mon: "deaf and dumb"? This usage is insensitive and inaccurate. It's also extremely sloppy writing.

Deaf people CAN'T hear. What you really mean is that Elizabeth Edwards WON'T hear. Big difference. I think you're trying to say that Elizabeth Edwards pretends not to hear, but she DOES hear, and that's sad/bad/irresponsible. Great. So say that.

And "dumb"? First, its archaic meaning is that someone can't speak. However, most d/Deaf people can, and do, speak as they negotiate life in a world tailored to hearing people. "Dumb" certainly doesn't mean "stupid," which is how you're using it here.

Is this nit-picking? You bet. But it's also important. And I expect better writing from Salon and its staff writers.