First, if you've ever spent much time in a foreign country, almost any foreign country, you know that most people are more courteous and value courtesy more than do Americans. In many cultures (e.g. all of the ones south of the Rio Grande, Middle Eastern cultures, Chinese, etc) courtesy is virtually a prerequisite for any kind of encounter including business dealings. They think we're boors and to a great degree, they're right. The point is that (a) the U.S. is not exactly overburdened with courtesy as it is and (b) if your posts are read by people of the aforementioned cultures and you're impolite, they will tend to ignore you.

Second, I'm old enough to have participated in demonstrations against the Viet Nam war. We learned early on that, while there are some people who will ignore what you have to say regardless, most people have some degree of openness. Therefore, if you adopt a civil tone, use civil words and avoid name-calling, etc., you have a chance of getting your point heard. If you don't do those things, your listeners tune you out immediately. The lesson here is that, if you're serious about what you're saying, you'll be as courteous and non-offensive as possible. If you choose to be offensive and/or rude, it's a sure sign you're not serious about what you're saying.

I'm all for blog hosts deleting posts that are offensive, ad hominem or off-topic.

of this particular dustup, the process that Greenwald initiated is good and necessary. Every time these people misrepresent the truth, we should call them on it and demand retractions, corrections, etc. If it's this uncomfortable for them to get it wrong, maybe they'll start to get it right.

So why don't women vote women into office? You're right that women are more than 50% of the population and they're an even higher percentage of the voting population. So why don't women elect women? One inescapable conclusion is that women, like men, seldom vote for a sex. Instead they vote for a person whom they perceive closest agrees with their political values. I know it's irritating, but it looks like those pesky women keep thinking for themselves instead of letting feminists do it for them.

No, actually women do not serve in combat positions in the U.S. military. That's explicit military policy. Of course, in Iraq anyone can become a target which is why some female military personnel have been killed and some injured. But, while about 27% of U.S. military personnel in Iraq are women, only about 2.5% of the deaths are. The fact that men are getting killed in Iraq at a rate 10 times that of women reflects the military's policy of not placing women in combat positions.

And what glass ceiling is that? The one that prohibits women (the majority of voters) from voting women into office?

Women have had the vote in this country for over 80 years. That's three generations more or less, and they've been extremely active in many areas of electoral politics. Indeed, the suffrage movement was itself a political movement that gave women the experience, tools and understanding necessary to successful political organizing. And yet, here in 2007 you talk about women as "outsiders" to the political system. They're not outsiders, they just don't perceive the need to elect women as such to office. Again, they seem to have the odd notion, at odds with many feminists, that gender is largely irrelevent to the decision of whom to vote for. Women can fill the corridors of political power any time they want to, but so far they haven't.

this is going to make it a lot harder for Bush to start bombing Iran. If there's not a nuclear weapons program to bomb, what would be the reason for bombing? They may shift their casus belli to "support for terrorists," but as it stands now, the NIE has knocked the props out from under Bush's stated reason to bomb Iran.

Ever hear of Emily's List?

to feel good about life when you're George W. Bush. Every minute of your life you've known that nothing you do, no matter how awful, incompetent, mendacious, etc, can possibly redound to your detriment. Do you make bad grades in school, score low on your SATs? No matter, you still get into Yale and later into Harvard. Do you fail at every business you start? No problem, daddy's friends will bail you out. Scared of being sent to Viet Nam? Why worry? Daddy's friends will make a few calls and you'll go to the head of the line for the Texas Air National Guard. Bored with that gig? Blow it off and work on a political campaign. Most guys would get court-martialled for going AWOL, but not you.

So now that you're president and the major intitiative of your 7 years in office has been revealed to have been based on lies, incompetently executed, cost hundreds of billions of dollars and countless lives with no end in sight and you are personally reviled by 70% of Americans, why not be happy? Soon you'll drift off into the cushiest of retirements and no one will ask you uncomfortable questions about the 8-year national disgrace that was your administration. What's not to like? Consequences are for chumps.